Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ESSEX RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

ANGLESEY MARONE TERMINAL BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday next.

UPPER AVON NAVIGATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

WEST SUSSEX COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

CULAG (LOCHINCER) PIER ORDER CONFORMATION BILL.

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Employment Agencies

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further representation he has received regarding the need for legislation to control private employment agencies.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): My right hon. Friend has received occasional complaints from the general public about the activities of private employment agencies, some suggesting the need for further legislation. The General Secretary of the British Actors Equity Association has made similar representations.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that Government action to deal with the well-established anti-social malpractices of these agencies is long overdue? While it may be too much to hope for the present Government to abolish private employment agencies, will the Minister seriously consider giving the Department of Employment a monopoly in the placement of permanent jobs and leaving the agencies to look after the "temps"?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Arrangements for the control of private employment agencies exist in only a limited number of local authority areas. In general, the controls which exist date from 1921. As I think the hon. Gentleman, or another hon. Member, was told earlier, a review of this legislation is in progress. It is still too early to say whether this will lead to further legislation.

Mr. Stanbrook: Surely it is better to improve the existing services than to bash private enterprise?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I think we had better wait and see what future action is needed until my right hon. Friend receives the report in the next few weeks.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that, although complaints to his Department are only occasional, the discontent caused by employment agencies is fairly widespread, particularly when applicants are


placed in jobs abroad? I have recently had a complaint from two young girls in my constituency each of whom was charged £25 to be placed in a job in Germany which turned out to be nothing like the job described by the agency. The girls are victims of the employment agency.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The outcome of the investigations may show that there is a case for improving hours and matters of that sort, but there are difficult matters of definition. I think we had better wait and see what comes out of the inquiry.

Mr. John Page: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Employment Agencies Association, which represents the majority of employment agents, would be willing to see sensible legislation and has, I believe, made representations to his Department about this?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I will certainly take into account what my hon. Friend has said.

Redundancies (Homchurch)

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what notification of anticipated redundancies in the Homchurch area has been received; and what the figures are for the number of known redundancies that have already occurred this year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): Redundancies involving 270 workpeople are recorded by my Department as having been due to occur in the Homchurch area in the period up to and including 30th June. I have no information on the precise number who may be involved in future redundancies in the area.

Mr. Loveridge: My constituents will appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, but is he aware of their anxiety at the proposed closure of the Plessey factory at Cranham? As there are still more people unemployed than there are vacancies in the area, will my hon. Friend give every assistance to his local office to find new jobs for my constituents as good as the ones they are losing?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir, I give my hon. Friend that assurance. The firm has undertaken to inform my Department as

soon as the details and the number of the impending redundancies are known. We shall do everything we can to help. Myhon. Friend may be interested to know that the majority of those in his area who have been made redundant this year and who have sought my Department's help have been successful' in obtaining other employment.

Beer (Price)

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the price of a pint of beer in public bars in June, 1970; and what is the price at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I regret that the average price of draught beer sold in public bars in June, 1970, is not available, but in July, 1970, it was about 26·5 old pence a pint, compared with about 13·0 new pence a pint in April, 1972. The average prices given relate to a variety of beers in differing proportions and make no allowance for variations in the original specific gravities of the same beers. They are therefore not strictly comparable.

Mr. Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such price rises are inflationary and, in view of the recent forecast of a dividend increase by Watney's of over 86 per cent. between 1971 and 1973, will he give an assurance that the Government will help to keep down these prices?

Mr. Chichester-CIark: This is not a matter for me, except in so far as it is a constituent part of the Index of Retail Prices, but I understand that leading brewers subscribe to the CBI undertaking and are honouring it. The rise in price is to some extent a hangover from the Labour Government in so far as it was the National Board for Prices and Incomes which recommended price increases. The price increases were recommended to enable brewers to improve breweries and distribution, hence the more substantial profit margin.

Mr. Evelyn King: Did not the National Board for Prices and Incomes make a thorough investigation of the subject and report that prices were moderate and reasonable? Is it not a fact that that board is likely to have been far more expert in these matters than is the hon.

Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark)

Mr. Chichester-Clark: My hon. Friend is not entirely correct in his interpretation of what was said by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, but I shall not be drawn further into considerations which are not my Department's responsibility.

Mr. Michael Cocks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time the general public were treated as adults and were told the specific gravities, so that people could make a fair comparison of what price increase has taken place?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman ought to table that Question to the responsible Department.

Training

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now announce his conclusions following consultations on the consultative document "Training for the Future".

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I hope it will be possible to announce my conclusions on the main issues before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Redmond: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the longer he takes to consider this matter carefully, the better the results are likely to be. A variety of opinions have been put forward on the serious problem of retraining. Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter which I sent to his Minister of State concerning one of my constituents, who is unable to get access to a training centre for retraining as a bricklayer when there is a desperate shortage of bricklayers in the area?

Mr. Macmillan: I have seen my hon. Friend's letter. There is a shortage of places in Government training centres and we have already taken crash action to provide another 3,000 training places, particularly in the more popular trades, largely by utilising unused industrial premises. On the main part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, it is difficult to make a statement even on the main issues until a good deal more work is carried out on the detailed and rather

complicated representations which have been made to us from over 1,000 different sources, particularly since, as hon. Members opposite know, there are one or two people we have still to see.

Mr. Kinnock: In the consultations following publication of this document, has the Secretary of State taken account of the critical statement made by informed opinion which is concerned with the training of school leavers? Before he publishes his findings, will he further consider the fact that the document excludes school leavers from specialist attention in industrial training?

Mr. Macmillan: The document follows previous practice by assuming that industrial training as opposed to vocational education is the responsibility of industry. When people take their first jobs it is the responsibility of the industry they enter to give them their training. I accept that there is a considerable need—as the Department has shown in what it has done—to deal with problems of redundancy among apprentices. There is a problem not only of retraining but also of ensuring that young people get the training they need for the jobs which are available.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for retraining were received in the first quarter of 1972; and what increase this represents over the same period in 1971.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: A total of 35,490 compared with 17,340 in the first quarter of 1971—an increase of over 100 per cent.

Mr. Hardy: While there appears to be a large increase, is it not plainly inadequate in view of the very large increase in unemployment which occurred in the same period? Will the Government show far more vigour in pressing ahead with retraining and also in ensuring that employers, whether in the public or private sector, maintain a helpful and encouraging attitude?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The number of training places available in Government training centres has already increased from about 10,000 to 11,000 since June, 1970, but the main expansion is still to come. It normally takes three years to


establish new steps. Action has already been taken to implement expansion of training facilities announced in the document "Training for the Future". We aim to train 60,000 or 70,000 candidates a year by 1975 and 100,000 a year as soon as possible compared with just over 20,000 now.

Mr. Loveridge: Could my hon. Friend say what help is available to find new jobs for men after retraining?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The record in this respect has not been unsuccessful. Of those trained at Government training centres 66 per cent. of the total are placed within one month in their trades and 74 per cent. within three months.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there are wide areas of the country with no retraining facilities whatever and that one of these is my area of North-West Wales, where unemployment is very high indeed? Will he take steps to establish a retraining centre in that area as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have been looking at the case of the right hon. Member's constituency and I shall be writing to him about it.

Nuneaton and Bedworth

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in Nuneaton and Bed worth; and how this compares with the similar period in 1970 and 1971.

Mr. Dudley Smith: In the area covered by the Nuneaton and Bed worth employment exchanges, at June, 1972, the total number registered as unemployed was 2,600, including 626 workers who were temporarily stopped. The total for June, 1971, was 2,497, of whom 686 were temporarily stopped, and for June, 1970, it was 1,849, including 808 temporarily stopped.

Mr. Huckfield: Does not the Minister regard these as shocking figures, particularly when one bears in mind that they represent percentages which compare unfavourably with places which have development area status? With question marks hanging over almost every industry in the area, what can my

constituents look forward to under the present Government?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member's constituents can look forward to a better rate of employment because unemployment locally fell by 340 last month and at last the trend is in the right direction. The wholly unemployed rate for men in the Coventry travel-to-work area is now the same as that for the whole of the West Midlands. The hon. Gentleman's pessimism does nothing to assist his area.

Mr. Huckfield: Neither does the hon. Gentleman's optimism.

Industrial Disputes

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many days have been lost through industrial disputes since 1st January, 1972.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: A total of 14,401,000 working days was lost through industrial stoppages in the period 1st January, 1972, to 31st May, 1972.

Mr. Cox: Since such an appalling figure will be added to the staggering total of 34 million days lost through industrial disputes in the last two years, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is still no improvement in his Government's claim to be able to improve industrial relations? Can he give an assurance that he has made clear to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the importance of using today's meeting with the TUC not to dictate or to use bullying tactics but genuinely to try to find an understanding so that there can be an improvement—or is this country, because of the pigheadedness of the Government, to see further major disputes such as those we have so far seen this year?

Mr. Macmillan: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday made clear the Government's position. He also made it clear that understandings are necessarily a two-way affair. This is a very high figure of which three-quarters, or 10·8 million days, is due to the national coal mining stoppage. It is also true to say that in the last year there has been a marked reduction in the number of occasions when a breakdown in industrial relations has resulted in industrial action.

Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend say roughly how many of the disputes have been stimulated by the Labour Party?

Mr. Macmillan: Not without notice. But even the most superficial observation would indicate that the attitude of the Labour Party in opposition is, if possible, noticeably less helpful than when it was in power.

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the 384 disputes in which his Department's conciliation officers were called in in the first five months of this year concerned wages issues; and what were the comparative figures for 1971, 1970 and 1969, respectively.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Thirty-two per cent. of all requests for conciliation in the first five months of 1972 concerned wages issues. The comparable figures are 29 per cent. for 1971 and 39 per cent. for 1970. I regret that similar figures are not available for 1969.

Mr. Grant: Is it not the case that many of the issues which have gone to conciliation in the last year or so have arisen from redundancies, which we expect at a time of chronic unemployment, and that on wages issues there is complete loss of faith in the Government because of their interference with the conciliation services? Is it not time that the Department of Employment stopped issuing misleading figures which purport to show that conciliation is now more popular?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: What the hon. Gentleman says is not borne out by the facts, because there is an increase in the figures I have just given regarding wages issues. It is clear that there is continuing confidence in the conciliation services. This is shown by the fact that 64 per cent. of conciliation cases undertaken in 1971 were at the request of unions and a further 11 per cent. were at the joint request of unions and employers.

Industrial Relations Act

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now carry out a review of the workings of the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will specify what he has learnt as a result of the working of the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. Orme: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the working of the Industrial Relations Act; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he remains satisfied with the working of the Industrial Relations Act, in the light of the latest developments in the docks dispute; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has now had with the Trades Union Congress on the operation of the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: It is much too early to judge the long-term effects of the Act after only four months. But there are already plenty of individual workers who have benefited from its provisions; managements in consultations with unions are already improving their policies and practices in the light of the Act and the code of practice. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I discussed the operation of the Act with the TUC on 26th April and we shall be doing so again later today.

Mr. Ashton: When is the Act supposed to start working? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of working days lost per month is four times what it was before the Act was passed? In view of the great distress to the public caused by the number of days lost, is it not apparent that the right hon. Gentleman has created a Frankenstein which he can no longer control?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman has produced a fallacious argument. What he is referring to are the extra working days lost caused by the miners' strike. There have in fact been fewer strikes than before.

Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Government could not judge the long-term effects of the Act they should never have passed it in the first place? Is he aware, further, that the only people who will benefit


from it are our overseas competitors, because the Act has made an already difficult situation worse? Since the Act will be repealed sooner or later by a Labour Government, why does not the right hon. Gentleman repeal it sooner and claim some credit for it?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not accept that the Act makes matters more difficult. Naturally in estimating the future of the Act I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we expect it to be wholly beneficial to the country and to the unions. But it is asking too much to judge the long-term results on the basis of four months' performance.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a sheer waste of time in the present situation to discuss this Act and its effects, since it is there in any event? Should not we be better employed in trying to get agreement on a proper prices and incomes policy, which would be of advantage to the £ in present circumstances?

Mr. Macmillan: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear yesterday that the Government hope to get full co-operation from the TUC and the CBI with a view to improving the machinery of negotiation and conciliation. I do not know whether it is worth discussing the Act, but certainly it will remain on the Statute Book.

Mr. Molloy: Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he had learnt something from the Act, though he did not specify what. From his replies today one can only conclude that in educational parlance he is a very late developer. In the interests of good industrial relations, will the right hon. Gentleman add to his nomenclature not only wage and salary norms but profit norms? Will he stop treating people who work by hand and brain to create the nation's wealth as being outside the British community, and in the interests of the nation as a whole will he suspend this ridiculous Act?

Mr. Macmillan: It is precisely because we regard those who work by hand and brain as being wholly within the community that we think that their associations should, like others in the community, operate within the framework of the law.

Mr. Simeons: Is it not as illogical to suggest that the Industrial Relations Act is the cause of poor industrial relations, as the Labour Party does, as to suggest that the divorce reform legislation which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite introduced is the cause of unhappy marriages?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend has produced rather an apt simile. Certainly it is the intention of the Industrial Relations Act that recourse to the courts should be a matter of last resort and not first resort, and, as in domestic life, conciliation is appropriate in industrial relations.

Mr. Orme: If the right hon. Gentleman states that he is not in a position to report on the success or otherwise of the Industrial Relations Act since it has operated for only four months, God help us when he gives a 12-month report on it, assuming that it remains in force. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about improved industrial relations, is he aware that in the engineering industry there is no negotiating machinery at the moment and that that situation has been brought about in many cases by the engineering employers supporting the Government's approach, especially on the status quo? What will the right hon. Gentleman do if the law is brought into the engineering industry through the Industrial Relations Court? He is in for a lot of trouble if that happens.

Mr. Macmillan: The dispute in the engineering industry is a matter between the unions. It has nothing to do with the Act. I repeat that it is impossible to judge the long-term effects of the Industrial Relations Act after four months. As one of its main purposes is to change attitudes over a period of time, I have no doubt that, judging from the considerable change in attitude among management and unions so far produced, it will be wholly successful.

Mr. Rost: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of rank and file trade unionists regard the Act as fair, especially those who have sought and obtained justice from it as a result of making claims about unfair dismissal and other unfair practices?

Mr. Macmillan: I have no doubt that many trade unionists regard the Act as


being very fair, especially to the individual. I remind hon. Members that those who criticise the Act did not have much time for Donovan, either.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the appalling figures announced today that over 14 million days have been lost in industrial disputes, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the best contribution he can make to improving industrial relations is to assure the TUC that he will put the Act into cold storage?

Mr. Macmillan: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is an almost wholly irrelevant remark. Of the 14 million days lost, 10 million were lost in the coal strike before the Act was in operation.

Mr. Waddington: After yesterday's debate, is my right hon. Friend clear whether it is the policy of the Opposition now to amend the Industrial Relations Act or to repeal it? To put it mildly, was not there a startling difference between the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and that of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who wound up yesterday's debate for the Opposition?

Mr. Macmillan: One's view about whether right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, assuming they were ever to come to office, would repeal or amend the Act depends upon whether one listened to the first speech yesterday or the last but one.

Mr. Prentice: I resist the temptation to comment on that schoolboy debating point. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that one of the main dangers to which we referred in yesterday' debate was that of the country being plunged into a national docks strike by accident? Is not that danger strengthened by the news today that the Midland Cold Storage Company has taken action against seven shop stewards, some of whom were concerned in the Chobham Farm dispute? If the right hon. Gentleman will not repeal the Act, will he not at least make a public appeal to dock employers to stop playing the fool and to keep these cases out of court while talks are going on between the unions and representatives of the employers to try to solve the real problems in the docks?

Mr. Macmillan: I agree that while the Aldington-Jones Committee is working

very hard to solve the real problems in the docks, the greatest possible restraint should be used. I apply that to both sides—unions and employers. A great deal of restraint is required if the temperature is to be kept down in these difficult times. But I do not regard this as a one-sided responsibility. As for the specific case to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I understand there may be a hearing tomorrow.

North-West Region

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will pay an official visit to the North-West Region.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have no such plans at present.

Mr. Lamond: Does the Secretary of State know that 7,000 engineering workers were recently locked out by Ferranti for a considerable period and that engineering firms in the North-West which met the legitimate wage claims of engineering workers have been expelled from the Engineering Employers Association? Does he not think that he should assist the Prime Minister in his belated wooing of the trade unions by going to the North-West and having a word with these employers about their inflammatory conduct towards industrial relations?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the inflammatory conduct of the employers. I am aware of the disputes in the North-West. The hon. Gentleman appears to be criticising the employers for showing the same solidarity in these matters for which he would no doubt praise the unions.

Mr. Redmond: If my right hon. Friend comes to the North-West, will he try to find time to visit Bolton to meet the industrial development officer who, poor man, has had to cancel his holidays this fortnight because he was busy dealing with industrial inquiries following the new regional industrial policies of the Government?

Mr. Macmillan: I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend that the new assisted area grants are providing efficacious.

Mr. Simon Mahon: If the right hon. Gentleman goes to the North-West, will


he try to see the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board? If he is serious about the docks dispute, will he ask how many registered dock labourers are members of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board? Would not this be an ideal initiation on his part as we have never had a worker who has been chairman of the board?

Mr. Macmillan: I am well aware of the difficulties on Merseyside and the troubles there have been. I prefer to leave the entire docks issue to the Aldington-Jones Committee, which is doing some very serious work. I do not think it would help if I were to make any particular comments on it.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend care to give the House the greatly improved employment figures for the North-West region in the last few months?

Mr. Macmillan: Total unemployment in the North-West fell by about 5,000 from 141,000-odd to 136,000. The number of those wholly unemployed fell by nearly 8,250 in the same period. What is hopeful in this situation is that the fall in the wholly unemployed was nearly twice that of the total unemployed.

Mr. Dell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, according to the figures just issued by his Department, the number of men actually unemployed for more than eight weeks has increased over the last two years by three times and the number of women by four times? In view of these appalling figures, will he visit my constituency and subsequently recommend to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that a special development area should be created on Merseyside?

Mr. Macmillan: I will certainly see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is made fully aware of the right hon. Gentleman's representation.

Apprentices (Termination of Employment)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set up an inquiry to ascertain how widespread is the practice of employers terminating the employment of employees on the completion of their apprenticeship.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: No, Sir. My information is that this practice does not exist on any significant scale.

Mr. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a disgracefully complacent answer? Will he reconsider the decision not to set up an inquiry, because instances are coming to light where, because of the shortening of the length of apprenticeships, apprentices are still in the process of continuing their technical college education when their employment is being terminated by their employers? The situation is serious. Therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider the decision not to set up an inquiry.

Mr. Chicbester-Clark: If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind I shall be glad to study them. However, we have no evidence that there is widespread activity of that kind. Indeed, a number of firms with training schools make a practice of training more apprentices than they need, which helps firms without training facilities to obtain trained craftsmen.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that serious problems arise from time to time when firms close down, because apprentices who have not quite completed their apprenticeships are at risk of losing two to three years of part-served apprenticeships? Does the Department take special steps to find opportunities for these lads to finish their apprenticeships?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Yes. Every help is given in that kind of situation. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, we shall be glad to do what we can to help.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Coat bridge and Airdrie and North Lanark shire he will find a number of apprentices who, within the last year, have been laid off and find it utterly impossible to get alternative employment to complete their apprenticeships? Is it not time that he did something about this situation?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I hope the situation will be improved by the general downward trend in unemployment. It is a fact that firms faced with general redundancy normally make very strong efforts to retain apprentices who are in course of training.

Tourist Industry

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment in which regions of the United Kingdom the tourist industry employs more people than the coal, steel or shipbuilding industries.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I regret that the information is not available. My Department's employment estimates are analysed according to the Standard Industrial Classification, which does not provide a separate classification for the tourist industry.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that those of us who have spent some time working in the industry will find that answer not altogether surprising as it indicates the lack of priority which successive Governments have given to it? Is he aware of the considerable opportunities for employment, particularly for young people, in the tourist industry? Will he do his best to emphasise that there are these opportunities in an industry with a future which offers security of employment?

Mr. Smith: I am aware of the good work my hon. Friend does on behalf of the tourist industry. The Government accept that it is of front-rank importance to the country's economy. The Department is doing everything possible to encourage more people, particularly young people, to go into the hotels and catering industry and the various other parts of the tourist industry. However, it is difficult to classify tourism by itself because hotels, catering, entertainment and other jobs have a different type of approach to this whole problem. I assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of effort is being made by the Department of Trade and Industry to assist the industry.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: While accepting the great importance of the tourist industry in terms of revenue and jobs, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that because of its seasonal nature it is no substitute for jobs giving permanent employment in manufacturing industry in areas of high unemployment like Wales and Scotland?

Mr. Smith: I go some way with the right hon. Gentleman on that point, but we are not talking purely of temporary

work. There is a great future for tourism in this country which offers work on a permanent basis. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from living in London, tourism now seems to span more than simply the summer months.

Dame Joan Vickers: In view of the great amount of unemployment among young people and the availability of excellent courses in polytechnics and technical colleges, may I ask my hon. Friend why he does not encourage more young people through his careers officers to go into this industry? Will he have another look at the Catering Wages Act to see whether it is satisfactory?

Mr. Smith: We are conscious of this matter and are making efforts in this direction. There have been consultations with the hotel and catering industry. Colleges of further education and employers, encouraged by my Department, are making provision for people to be trained. About 700 men and women are being trained annually at present, and by the end of the year the number could be about 1,400.

Equal Pay

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress towards the implementation of the Equal Pay Act.

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards the full implementation of the Equal Pay Act, 1970; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The evidence suggests that there has been a considerable degree of progress towards equal pay across a wide section of the economy, but a study to quantify this has been undertaken.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Would my hon. Friend confirm that it is the intention of the Government to implement this Act as widely and as swiftly as possible? Would he utterly repute the absurd and mischievous assertion of the General Secretary of the Clerical & Administrative Workers Union that the Government have little or no interest in equal pay and that he would not be a bit surprised


if the Government were to try quietly to bury the Act?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: If any such statement has been made by anybody I utterly refute it because, as I understand it, progress towards implementation of equal pay by 1975 is agreed on both sides of the House.

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to see the timetable for the achievement of equal pay kept to—and there is some evidence that at the present rate of progress it will not be—will he use his powers under the 1970 Act to introduce an order for an intermediate stage, so that by the end of 1973 women's rates will be at least 90 per cent, of the equivalent men's rates?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am aware of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act to which the hon. Lady is referring. To supplement the information that is available the Office of Manpower Economics was asked to undertake a study of equal pay and its first report, which should be published shortly, deals with the extent of the progress in implementing the Act and the problems being encountered. The report should be of help to employers and trade unions in implementing the Act and should show some of the other factors involved in progress towards implementation. I think we had better await the report before we make any further move on this front.

Mr. Ashley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that millions of women are being exploited because of the failure of the Government to implement the Act? Will he consider holding a special conference with employers and trade unionists to try to speed up its implementation, which is badly dragging behind?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not think there is any evidence whatsoever that in this matter women are being exploited on a wide scale. If they are, either the report to which I have referred will reveal it or, if not, a departmental inquiry into possible discrimination in this matter will certainly show it.

Mr. Harold Walker: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's announcement about an inquiry so that we may ascertain the facts. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a widespread feeling

of disquiet about the rate of progress towards equal pay. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said, will the hon. Gentleman make an early declaration of his intent to introduce an order to ensure that we make rapid progress, because that would concentrate the minds of employers and of trade unionists wonderfully towards securing the objectives which I am sure we all share?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Common sense dictates that we wait until we have seen the report to which I have referred. After that there will have to be consultations with the TUC, the CBI and other interested parties.

Vacancies (Sunderland)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the rate of notified vacancies to people registered as wholly unemployed in Sunderland at the latest available date.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In the area covered by the Sunderland and South-wick employment exchanges, at June, 1972, the number of notified vacancies remaining unfilled to every hundred people registered as wholly unemployed was 3·9.

Mr. Willey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that represents a serious position in Sunderland where there are 30 people after every job? That position has obtained for years and it demands more direct Government intervention to see that something is done about this chronic unemployment.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I recognise that unemployment in Wearside is much too high. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the rate has fallen from 8·7 per cent. in April to 7·8 per cent. in May, and down again to 7·5 per cent. in June. That represents a much more rapid improvement than in the national figures, and while unemployment has fallen the number of vacancies notified has risen by nearly 40 per cent. compared with June of last year and has doubled for men.

Mr. Bagier: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that Sunderland is still in a serious situation. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not responsible for


other Departments, but will he encourage the Government to do more about the dispersal of offices to the Northern Region, which could include Sunderland and Washington? Will he, for example, encourage his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to allow the building of three schools to go ahead, which could provide much-needed employment for building workers, and will he speak to his right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction who is refusing to allow the direct works department to build houses for sale?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: That seems to be rather a miscellany of questions for a miscellany of other Departments. I recognise the seriousness of the problem, and I have no doubt whatsoever that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be listened to in other quarters.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST-APOLLO PROGRAMME (EUROPEAN PARTICIPATION)

Q1. Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination of all Departments in the study of Recommendation 663 of the Council of Europe, to define as a matter of priority the technological, scientific and political implications of a possible Europe participation in the post-Apollo programme; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. The implications of possible European participation are being discussed interdepartmentally and with representatives of British industry, as well as with our partners in the European Space Conference and, jointly with them, with the United States authorities.

Mr. Lloyd: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is probably one of the most important decisions facing the Governments of Europe in this decade? Further, would my right hon. Friend agree that, on the balance of facts, there is at least a serious danger of our missing the post-Apollo bus altogether? If, because of the failure of the European institutions most involved, my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to take a giant step towards Europe, will he take a small step and ensure that if there is a

failure to join it will not be attributed to a lack of energy, imagination or enthusiasm on the part of Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: In this country we have done an enormous amount of work on the possibilities of participation in the post-Apollo programme, but I must tell my hon. Friend that the situation has greaty changed since the Council of Europe passed its resolution. It has now been learnt from the American Government that there are very considerable limitations on what any European grouping can be asked to do in that project. What we could be asked to do in Europe as a whole is now limited to what one might describe as normal technology. We would not have any share in the advanced technology which might come from post-Apollo. It is therefore obviously necessary for the conference on 11th–12th July to consider what Europe would wish to do in these circumstances.

Mr. Dalyell: If we are not to have any share in the advanced technology, is that not the fault of the Government for dithering?

The Prime Minister: No, not in the least. European Governments have had their meetings about their attitude towards this matter. A project of this size demanding immense expenditure has rightly been thoroughly examined by the European Governments. If it is said that the option now is participating in the orbital system development and possibly some minor shuttle work or taking no part in the programme, Europe has to ask whether the expenditure of millions of pounds is worth while. We have not missed the boat. The American project has changed, and as the Americans now have grave doubts about carrying on with the tug project, there is a greater limitation on what Europe is being invited to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (DISPERSAL)

Mr. Strang: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an interim statement on the investigations of the Government Departments dispersal committee.

The Prime Minister: I expect to receive recommendations by the end of


the year. I will then report the outcome to the House.

Mr. Strang: Is the Prime Minister aware that since my Question was tabled the Minister of Agriculture has announced that the headquarters of the Intervention Board for Agriculture is to be sited at Reading and that when he made that announcement he gave no convincing reason why that new Government Department should not have been sited at Edinburgh, Glasgow or Newcastle? Furthermore, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the May edition of Civil Service News the Hardman Committee is looking only into Departments which can be dispersed and not at possible new sites for Departments. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to be as dogmatic and as inflexible as he can on this issue and make a real effort to get Civil Service jobs out of London into the regions?

The Prime Minister: We have made a considerable effort, and the review of the Hardman Committee covers 40 Government Departments employing a staff in London of more than 90,000 engaged on policy work. It is therefore an integral exercise to decide how many of the staff involved and how many of the policy-making Departments involved can be moved to another part of the country without interfering to a considerable extent with the efficiency and the organisation of government. But this is being done, and I hope to receive the report before the end of the year and to make an announcement shortly thereafter.
Although this will infuriate many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, on both sides of the House, he must acknowledge that at present Scotland has over 41,000 Civil Service jobs—8 per cent. of the total—and this is the second largest concentration outside London and the South-East.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Even at this late hour, is it possible to draw the attention of the House to the special claims of Peterborough in this respect? Peterborough is an ancient city which, in order to be a good neighbour to London, is going through the pain and inconvenience of the new towns procedure. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have promised that they will give

attention to this sort of help. Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind the promises that have been made?

The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that the Hardman Committee is examining all special cases and special places throughout the country.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment, in his otherwise excellent speech at Stockholm, invited the United Nations to consider establishing its permanent United Nations Environmental Agency in London, although this would not be a contribution to the environment; and, while we shall welcome it in Britain, it ought to be somewhere outside London?

The Prime Minister: The House will recognise that when international bodies are seeking headquarters, they normally seek a site in the capital of the country concerned. There have been some rare occasions when international bodies have been prepared to place their institutions elsewhere. But of course, other places can always be considered.

Mr. Ridsdale: Clacton-on-Sea has an unemployment rate of 9 per cent., which is more than that of Sunderland and almost twice Peterborough's rate. Would my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to seeing that some Government Departments go to that town?

The Prime Minister: The Hardman Committee will note what my hon. Friend has said. It is no doubt aware that many seaside resorts provide suitable accommodation.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the Prime Minister recollect that in a reply he gave yesterday he showed that the total number of jobs which had been dispersed to development areas was only 1,020, of which only 195 went to Wales. Is this not a miserable record and does it not show that, despite the Government's undertakings in this regard, they have no intention of channelling to these areas, whose needs are so great, the resources so necessary to their development?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The figure I gave the hon. Gentleman was the figure for dispersals which had taken place in the last two years as a result


of decisions taken by the Government during the last two years. A considerable length of time elapses from the moment the decision is taken because of the necessity of making suitable arrangements for staff to move into different houses, to take their families and to arrange for education. What is important is the total size of the programme and I have given those figures to the House previously.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST NORTHUMBERLAND

Mr. Milne: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to South-East Northumberland.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Milne: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has not treated this Question with the seriousness it deserves? Having recently appointed a Minister to be responsible for the development areas and having seen how little has been done since that appointment, it is necessary for the Prime Minister to keep a check on his appointments. Does he recollect that as President of the Board of Trade in 1963 he claimed that the area already had too many job prospects and that we were shouting too loud in the North-East? We are still shouting, and we want an answer.

The Prime Minister: I never declared that the North-East had too many job prospects. I said that certain areas in the North-East at that time—I recall particularly Darlington—had said that as far as they were immediately concerned they were coping with as much fresh industry as they could cope with. But from the point of view of the hon. Gentleman's area obviously more industry is required, and encouragement is being given to it. It is a little ungracious to accuse my right hon. Friend of not having flooded the North-East with industry and people working in new factories as soon as he took office.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that in the North-East it is generally realised that the present Government have given the greatest possible attention to the region and that we are extremely grateful for the consideration given to our particular problems?

The Prime Minister: I think that is right, because having been intimately concerned with the North-East in 1963–64 I have retained many contacts there and this, I believe, is the view in the North-East.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Prime Minister seriously reconsider his original reply? If he visits South-East Northumberland, when he drives from Newcastle airport he will pass an excellent site at Kenton Bar which has been left idle and empty because of his doctrinaire decision to abolish the Land Commission. This site would make a first-class headquarters for the proposed British Gas Corporation. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind?

The Prime Minister: That is at least a constructive proposal, which I have noted.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT POLICIES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Press Association on 14th June on Government policies.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29th June to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy).—[Vol. 839, c. 1657–64.]

Mr. Huckfield: Does the Prime Minister recall that he devoted a great deal of his time in that speech to the themes of instant think and the speed-up of modern communications? How about giving the country a massive demonstration of the speed of modern communications by adopting some of the ideas which the TUC will put to him in one and a half hours' time? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman scrap the Industrial Relations Act and get down to understanding the aspirations of working-class people in Britain?

The Prime Minister: I made the Government's position on that quite clear yesterday.

Mr. Kinsey: My right hon. Friend will remember that in his speech he spoke of the help that the present Government have given to the aged, the needy and the sick in our community. Will he continue to say what we have done, because the country needs to be aware of how


we have helped the Opposition failed?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Prime Minisster at least prepared to accept that one man's rent increase is the same man's wage cut? In the interests of a rapprochement with the trade unions later today, is he prepared to put the Housing Finance Bill on ice?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. What the hon. Gentleman has just said is an excellent example of the phrase quoted by one of his hon. Friends and an example of gross distortion of the situation. Those who are living in local authority houses will pay a fair rent, which was the system advocated by the Minister in the previous Government but which they never had the guts to carry through. Nor will they recognise that, for the first time, tenants in private accommodation will receive rent rebates, from which the lower-paid workers of the community can benefit, and that council tenants also will be eligible for this rebate throughout the country. This is a sensible, rational and helpful housing programme.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC POLICY (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if the broadcast statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 19th June on economic policy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if the broadcast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 19th June on economic matters represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Meacher: As in that broadcast the Chancellor of the Exchequer cited the Housing Finance Bill as an example of the Government trying to be fair, how does the Prime Minister explain that the Government's figures indicate that over a five-year period owner-occupiers with incomes of over £40 a week will gain an estimated £57 million a year in extra housing aid while council tenants with incomes below £40 a week, even after receiving rent rebates, will still be deprived of about £102 million a year in

housing aid? When will the Government stop using—[Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask that sort of detailed question, he can put it on the Order Paper.

Mr. Dalyell: The Chancellor said that profits from land speculation were offensive to him. What will the Government do about it?

The Prime Minister: What we are arranging to do is to get a much greater release of land, for which local authorities have had some £80 million made available to them, so that with the greater quantity of land available speculation will not be profitable and there will not be the increases in land costs.

Mr. Tapsell: In the light of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on 19th June will my right hon. Friend, in his talks later this afternoon with the TUC, draw the attention of the TUC to the fact that if note is not taken of the further developments on the foreign exchange markets today, job prospects all over the country will be put at risk?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend must stand by his remarks. But the point is that when the £ is floating, as it is at present, there will be variations until it has reached a settlement stage in the float. This must have been obvious to everybody at the time it was floated.

Mr. Skinner: When the Prime Minister refers to people in the private sector getting a rent allowance, is he aware that what is suggested in theory is completely different from what will happen in practice? The private tenant will go to council offices and/or the supplementary benefits office, collect the money and hand it over to the landlord, and the landlord will not even have to pay the bus fare to collect it.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is wrong in both practice and theory.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of Environmental Pollution in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouth shire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr, R. Carr.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

[11TH ALOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress 28th June].

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 9

COMPANIES

Amendment proposed [28th June]: No. 471, in page 13,line 37, to leave out subsection (1)—[Sir Elwyn Jones.]

Question again proposed.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: When the operation of the guillotine rendered any further contribution to the debate last Wednesday ultra vires I was turning my attention to the report of the Jenkins Commitee, which I thought had been rather patronisingly played down by hon. and learned Members on the Government side.
That Committee found that the desire to remove the ultra vires doctrine was a wish to invest a company with the powers of a natural person. But it was pointed out that the company could not act as a natural person because it had to act through delegates and agents—namely, its directors. I repeat what I said earlier, that I am unwilling to see a company invested with all the advantages of a natural person without any of the legal disadvantages. I am also unwilling to see it have the advantages of an artificial creation without the disadvantages of that creation. That illustrates the stupidity of trying to reform company law in a subsection of a Bill on an entirely different matter. It is a partial reform and an enforced reform. If a company is to be given powers of a natural person towards which the subsection goes some way, I would look for a curtailment of the doctrine of limited liability so as to increase the personal liability of directors—financially as well as legally.
It is said that Clause 9(1) is necessary to make our company law conform to the EEC directive 68/151. But here I repeat

what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies). What was the purpose of introducing those provisions into a system of law which is largely unknown on the Continent?
My second point is: do we as a country need to conform to article 9(2) as well as (1)? If so, what is the real legal significance of the wording of that paragraph in this context? Is it the case, as appears to me, that paragraph (2) modifies the statutory ultra vires as well as the ultra vires applying to the memorandum and articles of association, even though third parties may know of the existence of a limitation in the articles?
If that is so, if we need to conform to article 9(2) of the directive, is it not a fact that it is not incorporated in Clause 9(1) as it is at present drafted and, therefore, that the Bill does not wholly meet our obligations to bring our law into line with Community law and that we may require at some later stage further modification of the doctrine? If it incorporated article 9(2) what is the value of the purchasers being protected only if they are acting in good faith? According to article 9(2) the company can never rely upon any statutory modification or modification in the articles or memorandum. Whether or not that party knows of any limitation it cannot be presumed in English law to be acting in good faith. In other words, the Minister must make clear to us what is the value of limiting the protection to a person acting in good faith in the context of the Bill.
I hope we shall have precise and detailed answers. It is time that on one subsection of one Clause we should have precision, because otherwise the law will be unclear. The overall answer to the problem is that the Government should withdraw the subsection and replace it with a Measure which will place our need to modify our company law so as to conform with that of the EEC within a coherent overall Measure of change.

Mr. Michael English: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in his last suggestion. We know that the Government do not want to amend the Bill in the House of Commons but they could adopt his suggestion in the House of Lords without even troubling themselves with a Report stage in this House. I do


not wish to elaborate the point at length on this Clause.
Several of my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Government side have remarked upon the odd points of the Clause, the oddest of all being that it is here at all. Earlier in the Bill we have taken power to do exactly the things the Clause does by Order in Council laid before the House of Commons. The provision is in the Clause but it has obviously been put in hurriedly, and my hon. Friends have already mentioned the peculiarity of the word "directors". It is fairly obvious these days in the case of large companies that many transactions are not decided by the directors.
One point does not appear to have been mentioned. We discused at great length the operation of the ultra vires rule in Britain in relation to a company. No one has mentioned its operation in relation to any other body. Other hon. Members have remarked upon the differences between the European Roman law system, where the doctrine of ultra vires does not exist, and our own system, where it does. It has been pointed out that the ultra vires rule is relatively recent in the history of English law. But it also exists in relation to other corporations than companies. It is a general doctrine which is present in English law and it is absent in the Roman law systems. The result of the Clause is therefore to alter our company law in such a way that we alter it towards the European system but do not do the same for these other corporations. In Europe the other corporations are on the same footing as companies. At the moment in England they are all subject to the ultra vires rule. It shows that the Clause has not been fully thought out by the Government. Someone in the recesses of Whitehall has said that it is necessary to have a Clause which brings British law into conformity with European company law. What has not been realised is that what is wanted is a Clause bringing our rule of ultra vires into conformity with Roman law, where it does not exist but where in certain cases other things have been put in its place.
We all know that in Britain the ultra vires rule applies to the Government themselves. If they produce an Order in Council or a ministerial order which is not in conformity with the Act giving a

Minister power to make such an order, that can be held to be ultra vires and voided by the courts. The same sort of situation did not exist in Roman Law, which is precisely why in the Roman law system the French Conseil ďEtat, for example, had to invent the doctrine of abuse of power, which is somewhat different from our ultra vires rule but was designed for the same purpose of preventing the Executive doing what the Legislature had not permitted it to do.
The other case where the rule is of interest is that of local authorities and nationalised corporations. I see no mention in the Bill of the position of nationalised corporations with regard to the ultra vires rule. Do the Government wish them to be on the same footing as companies? At present they are. If a nationalised corporation acts outside the powers laid down for it by the original Act of Parliament, something can be done about it in the courts. If the position of companies in this respect is being altered, what is the position of an individual who may be engaged in exactly the same sort of commercial transaction with a nationalised industry as he would be with a company? He may be selling goods to them both. Under the Clause it is now said that if the company he is dealing with goes outside its powers and he does not know about it, the transaction is valid, but it is still said, presumably, that if a nationalised industry goes outside its powers, the transaction, whether the individual knows about it or not, is invalid. From the point of view of the other party, that is a ridiculous system. At present, everybody at least knows that the ultra vires rule applies to all corporations. Now, apparently, it will not apply to some. I should like to know whether the Government think that is desirable for the general commercial law of the country.
With regard to local authorities, strangely enough in the old mediaeval law of England we used to be much nearer the Continental system. It used to be held to be true that a chartered corporation could do anything that a natural person could do. Subsequently, in the nineteenth century, judicial decisions became much more restrictive as to whether or not that was possible. In any case, many local authorities, such as the county councils, the new major authorities we are


setting up under the Local Government Bill, and so on, are not chartered corporations, so the rule is relatively irrelevant. But why should a person dealing with a local authority be placed in any different position from a person dealing with a company?
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), I should like the Government to think again about the Clause. I would go a little further than my hon. Friend and suggest not merely that they should think about a revision of company law in this respect but that if they wish to deal with the ultra vires rule they should deal with transactions that individuals or corporations have with all other corporations.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I tremble, after hearing the two learned hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken on the subject, to enter into such a technical field, but I have always felt that the ultra vires rule was one of the nastiest and most quirky corners of our company law. My first reaction is to give a warm welcome to a Clause which will do away with it.
I should like to address one question to my own Member, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), who has convinced the Committee of his knowledge of the subject. He said that it would be wrong for a company to have the advantages of trading as a person without also being exposed to the disadvantages. But I am not certain that it is correct that the company would not be exposed to those disadvantages, nor am I certain what those disadvantages are. The hon. Gentleman will not find it difficult to explain to the Committee what he meant, but I should be grateful if he would explain it to me.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. John: I normally hold surgeries for constituents, but I will use the Floor of the Chamber on this occasion.
What I meant was that if the company is being set free from the ultra vires doctrine, its agents, its directors, are free to contract in the same way as a natural person, untrammelled by any objects. But the doctrine of limitation of liability gives them a great advantage over the natural person. What I am saying is that

if the Government are to confer on them the advantage of a natural person, their freedom to contract, the Government should also consider the disadvantages—namely, the avoidance or curtailment of the doctrine of limitation on liability, so that directors who make such decisions stand by their own financial judgment to the extent of their personal fortunes.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: We are getting so far out to sea that I have almost lost touch with land. We are now introducing the question of limited liability, which I think is one of the most important main springs for the further reform of company law.
Is not the hon. Gentleman making the best the enemy of the good, in that it is an advance in our company law to do away with the ultra vires doctrine, even if an enormous lacuna then opens up for further reform of company law? The hon. Gentleman may know, although we did not have the pleasure of his joining us in the Committee considering my own Companies Bill this year, that I am extremely enthusiastic that the Government should do something as soon as possible about company law reform on the grand scale. I hope that a Companies Bill may be introduced in the next Session. It seems to me somewhat querulous, and a mistake, to prevent a small advance simply on the ground that the Government should be introducing a much bigger Bill.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I rise only to add one very brief comment to what has been said during the debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) that the ulra vires rule should go, in so far as it does in the Clause, and that it is not a valid criticism to say that while doing one thing the Bill should do a lot of other things in company law. After all, it is not a Companies Bill as such.
Nor do I think valid the criticism made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in regard to the limitation of the matter in respect of public corporations and local authorities. It is certainly a point that should be considered whether a nationalised industry or public corporation is to be put into a more favourable position than a company.

Mr. English: I was trying to make the point not so much that the Clause put nationalised corporations in an unfavourable position as that it put other parties who might be dealing with local authorities, nationalised corporations and companies, perhaps selling the same product to them all, in an inconvenient position if they had to understand that one set of law applied to companies and another to some other customers.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I follow the point. What I was saying was that there may well be a case for doing the same thing in regard to public corporations in order that persons trading with them should not be at that disadvantage. That is a stronger point than the criticism that the Bill does not go far enough in the reform of company law, but it does not necessarily destroy the efficacy or the virtue of the provision if otherwise it is appropriate.
The position is somewhat narrower than has been suggested. The position really is whether, assuming that it is a good object to do away with the ultra vires principle to the extent set out in the Clause, it is done in a sufficiently clear and satisfactory way. There is general agreement, although some doubts were expressed on certain matters about creditors and the like, about the desirability of doing away with the ultra vires principle to the extent set out in the Clause. My understanding is that the effect of the Clause is not to do away with the ultra vires principle in toto regarding companies.
There are presumably two aspects of the ultra vires principle regarding companies, one of which is to enable the company to repudiate transactions with third parties which go outside the objects of the company defined in the memorandum and articles of association. However, there is surely a second and important part of the principle of ultra vires; that is to say, that part of it which enables members of a company to restrain their directors from acting ultra vires the objects of the company. The Clause does away with certain modifications and safeguards on the first of those ultra vires aspects. The second is unaffected, and it is right it should be so. It seems right that part of the ultra vires principle, which goes to trading

with third parties, should be done away with, since it is hardly possible as a practical aspect of modern commercial life for people entering into ordinary trading transactions to make themselves aware of the objects of the company in detail. No doubt it would be prudent to do so but theoretical prudence and commercial practicality are often far apart.
I remember on one occasion observing that the only reasonably certain way to win a building contract case was for the contractor to take the operation of the works from the start precisely as if he were fighting the case backwards. I went on to say that it is not really a viable proposition because of the difference between the commercial climate, the climate of the site, so to speak, in that case, and the theoretical requirements of law.
Therefore, I agree with those who have said that the ultra vires principle should go to the extent set out in the Clause. After all, as we have been reminded, its abolition was recommended as long ago as the Cohen Report, albeit not wholly reproduced in the later Jenkins Report. I shall certainly not oppose the subsection, provided that we can have a reassurance that its drafting is less unsatisfactory than it appears. At the start of the subsection the word "dealing" is not clear. Is it intended to be wider than "trading", and, if so, in what respects? The main disadvantage is the phrase,
decided on by the directors".
That is a phrase which we understand to be a loose adaptation of the phase in Article 9 of the directive—
…the organs of the company…".
We want to know what this means in practice, or what it is intended to mean, and whether it is reasonably certain that its intended meaning will be valid.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is highly unsatisfactory to seek to amend company law in a Bill to which the Government are not prepared to allow any Amendment?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I was coming on to that point, because this is a subsection which requires improvement or amendment. We do not know whether "directors" means the totality of the directors, a quorum of the directors or


an individual director—for example, the managing director enjoying delegated powers. We do not know whether an express delegation by his colleagues for a particular transaction would bring the managing director within the definition "decided on by the directors", whereas his conduct in the ordinary delegation under the Companies Acts might put him in a different position. We do not know exactly what the position would be if he were acting as an agent of the directors, having ostensible authority, and whether that would bring his single act to be understood as an act of all the directors, which therefore would come within the definition "decided on by the directors".
These appear to be defects or imprecisions in drafting, and I agree with what has been said on this point by hon. Members opposite. It is difficult to think that we would not get better or clearer drafting if we started de novo in this matter in an English companies Bill designed to exclude the ultra vires principle in favour of bona fide traders with companies or if the Government would reconsider the matter and propose clarifying Amendments on Report.
This situation illustrates the disadvantage of not having a Report stage, though in this particular case, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, West said, it could be dealt with by an Amendment in the other place. The other place is quite an appropriate place for dealing with matters of this sort. We can get this wording in order, or should be able to do so, because even if article 9 of the directive is not clear in all respects we are not bound by the words of a Community directive. We are at liberty to achieve its result in whatever form of words we wish.
I thought it right to indicate my position on this matter. I consider that the basic object of the subsection is a good one, even if it is not a particularly burning issue. I should not on that account wish to support an Amendment to omit it. On the other hand, the drafting is imperfect and should be improved. I should prefer not to have to vote to take out the subsection because I approve of its objects. However, unless we can have a reasonable degree of reassurance on the various points of drafting, it is

possible that one might be constrained, albeit reluctantly, to do so.

4.0 p.m.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) because his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said in opening this debate that the requirement of all lawyers was complete clarity and precision. As the debate has been almost but not entirely taken up with lawyers and their varying views, it was a great kindness to me that the hon. Member for Pontypridd intervened late last week, enabling me to obtain the views of our own lawyers, and perhaps to answer with greater clarity and precision than I would have done if I had had to make this speech off the cuff.
Whereas I have found all lawyers to seek clarity and precision, I have not always found that all lawyers regard the same things as equally clear and precise. However, I shall genuinely do my best, as I am advised, to clear up the many questions which have been asked during the course of this interesting debate.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South found not only the subsection but the directive upon which it is based obscure and ambiguous. Doubts about the directive were also expressed by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies), who asked why a directive relating to freedom of establishment should be concerned with company law. The hon. Member for Pontypridd said he found paragraph 2 of article 9difficult and loosely phrased.
The directive was made under Chapter 2 of the EEC Treaty. Therefore, it relates, as the hon. Member for Llanelly rightly said, to freedom of establishment. The article under which it was made was 54(3)(g) which provides that ths Council shall issue directives to co-ordinate to the necessary extent the guarantees which member States require of companies so as to protect the interest of both members and outsiders.
The Six, when it drew up the treaty, no doubt considered that a member State could be expected to allow freedom of establishment in its territory to companies incorporated in other member States only if those companies were subject to laws which provided adequate


safeguards for those who invested in them and did business with them. These laws are mainly the company laws of the member States.
A directive relating to freedom of establishment, when it is made under article 54(3)(g) of the treaty, will require member States to provide safeguards which they will usually provide by means of their company laws.
I hope that explanation will satisfy the hon. Member for Llanelly that a directive relating to freedom of establishment may properly be concerned with company law.
The basic requirement of paragraph 1 of article 9 of the directive is that an act done by an organ of a company towards a third person shall bind the company even though that act is not within the objects of the company.
We consider that a company incorporated in Britain has two organs—the company in general meeting and the board of directors—and only the second of those, the board of directors, is relevant to the requirement. The requirement is, therefore, that an act done by the board of directors of a company towards a third person shall bind the company even though that act is not within the objects of the company.
Subsection (1) of the Clause gives effect to that requirement by providing that
In favour of a person dealing with a company…any transaction decided on by the directors shall be deemed to be one which it is within the capacity of the company to enter into".
The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South said, in relation to the word "capacity", that he found the language of the subsection difficult. He observed that the proviso in the article, to the effect that a company was not to be bound if the act exceeded the powers which the law confers or allows to be conferred on the organ, was not reflected in the subsection. I am advised that a company has capacity to enter into any transaction which is in pursuit of the objects expressly stated in its memorandum or which is ancillary to the pursuit of those objects.
The subsection provides that, in favour of a person dealing with a company, a transaction decided on by the directors shall be deemed to be within the

capacity of the company; that is, if the transaction was not within the capacity of the company it shall be treated as though it were within the capacity. If the transaction is to be so treated it must be one that would have been within the capacity of the company if the company's memorandum had included an appropriate object.
Section 1 of the Companies Act, 1948, states that persons may associate to form a company for any lawful purpose. It follows that a transaction may be deemed to be within the capacity of the company if it is lawful, but not if it is unlawful.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South came to this conclusion, as he said that the subsection could mean that the transactions which bind the company are not free of any limitation imposed by the general law. The subsection does not protect a person who buys a section of the M1, nor, as the hon. Member for Llanelly feared might, does it protect a subsidiary company which receives, without giving any consideration, assets or money from its parent company.
I should like to put one very small point on the record which seemed to me to be in some danger last week. There is apparently a distinguished professor—I think Professor Gower—who in talking about gold mines suggested that it would be very improper if one were to buy a gold mine and found that instead one had got a fish and chip shop. As a person who until a few years ago was responsible for a very large number of fish and chip shops—and if hon. Members will forget the events of the last few days—I should like to record that the fish and chip shops are exceedingly good businesses, extremely well run. I should hate to think that the House had recorded for ever that a fish and chip shod was necessarily a somewhat disreputable thing one might get in mistake for a gold mine.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is only in a figurative sense that a fish and chip shop is a gold mine?

Mr. Noble: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. Fish and chip shops seem to be under a considerable cloud, as mentioned by


the right hon. and learned Gentleman, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and one or two other hon. Members in what appeared to me to be a pejorative sense. I was hoping to set the record straight that they could be exceedingly good and pleasant things, and could make money.
I said that the basic requirement of paragraph 1 of article 9 was that a company should be bound by a transaction decided on by its directors although that transaction was not within the objects of the company. The paragraph permits a departure from that requirement where the company can prove that the person with whom it entered into a transaction knew that the transaction was outside the objects of the company or could not in the circumstances have been unaware of that fact.
The subsection makes such a departure by requiring a person who deals with a company, if he is to benefit from the subsection, to deal in good faith. The meaning of "good faith" troubled the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South and, I think, the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan). The subsection provides some guidance. It provides explicitly that a person who is a party to the kind of transaction with which the subsection is concerned shall not be bound to inquire as to the capacity of the company to enter into it. The fact that he had not examined the company's memorandum would not therefore be ground for holding that he had not dealt in good faith, even though, as the hon. Member for Cardigan suggested, under our law as it stands his failure to do so might be regarded as negligence.
As for other grounds for holding that he had not dealt in good faith, the subsection provides that he shall be presumed to have acted in good faith unless the contrary is proved. Proof that he had actual knowledge that the transaction was beyond the capacity of the company would be proof that he had not acted in good faith. A person must act honestly if he is to act in good faith. If he is reckless or negligent, his behaviour might not amount to dishonesty or bad faith. Recklessness or negligence might lead to his entering into a transaction which was unlawful and would have

been unlawful whatever the company s objects.
If that were so, he would not have the benefit of the subsection. However, the reason would not be that he had failed to act in good faith; it would be, as I have explained, that the subsection is relevant only to a transaction which would have been within the company's capacity had it a relevant object in its memorandum.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Has the right hon. Gentleman now said that the phrase "decided by the board of directors" means the board of directors and not one or two individual directors? If that is so, should it not be made clear, and is this not a respect in which the Bill should plainly be amended?

Mr. Noble: I am coming to this point, which was raised by a number of hon. and right hon. Members. Paragraph 1 of article 9 is to do with the limitation to the powers of the directors of a company imposed by the objects of the company. It requires, provided that certain conditions are satisfied, that this limitation be disregarded so far as the rights of the person contracting with the company are concerned. However, such a person may be affected not by a limitation to the capacity of the company but by a limitation to the powers of the directors.
This would be so where the articles give to the directors powers which fall short of the full powers of the company. Paragraph 2 of article 9, which the hon. Member for Pontypridd asked me to explain, deals with this point. The paragraph provides that limits on the powers of the directors, arising under the statutes or from a decision of the competent bodies, may never be relied upon, even if they have been disclosed. The statutes to which the paragraph refers are in Britain the company's articles, and a decision by the competent body is a resolution of the company in general meeting which would lead to a change in the articles.
The subsection implements this paragraph by providing, in favour of a person dealing with a company, not only that a transaction decided on by the directors shall be deemed to be one which it is within the capacity of the company to enter into, but also that the powers of


the directors to bind the company shall be deemed to be free of any limitation under the articles of association and that a party to a transaction so decided shall not be bound to inquire as to any such limitation on the powers of the directors.
Some hon. Members have spoken as though the subsection abolishes the doctrine of ultra vires. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) have said, this is not so. The subsection does not alter the contract between shareholders and the company; it only affects third persons dealing with the company. It does not absolve directors from liability to compensate the company if they act outside the powers of the company or outside their own powers. They can also be restrained from acting beyond these powers, as they were in the Daily News case which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Llanelly. This is not affected by the subsection.

4.15 p.m.

I have explained that the words "the directors" in the subsection mean the board of directors. I have not commented on the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South about the managing director who enjoys the very wide powers which can be conferred upon him under regulation 109 of Table A of the Companies Act, 1948. Where the directors of a company have conferred upon a managing director substantially all their powers relevant to transactions with third persons to the exclusion of their own powers, that director is the only director who can decide whether a transaction is one which the company shall enter into. In such a case the words "the directors' in the subsection would mean the "managing director". Similarly, the words could mean a group of two or more managing directors if the directors had conferred all their relevant powers to the exclusion of their own powers on such a group.

The subsection does not aim at wholly relieving a person who contemplates entering into a transaction with a company from the need to make inquiries.

Mr. Tom Normanton: May I ask how one deals in practice with the situation where there are no managing

director appointments—and there are a number of situations where this applies—and where the appointment of a managing director confers upon the recipient powers and authority way beyond those which exist at present? I raise this in a constructive sense.

Mr. Noble: I would imagine that if there was no managing director in a company the powers which the directors have would be the relevant ones. If there is a managing director then the extent to which he becomes the relevant person according to this subsection would depend entirely on what powers the directors had given him to make decisions and under which he acted.

Mr. Jay: Surely if the phrase means what the right hon. Gentleman has now told us it means, the Bill should say so? The point still remains that the Bill ought to be amended.

Sir Elwyn Jones: May I intervene at this point, too? If "the directors" means "the board of directors", should not the Bill say that? In dealing with good faith the submissions that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman seem to go far beyond mere construction of the words of the subsection. In relation to negligence and recklessness there seems to be an attempt to state matters of law not covered at all by the subsection. If that is the case, then again the subsection should be amended to provide for it.

Mr. Noble: Far be it from me to try to interfere with the points of view which hon. and learned Members may hold. All I was trying to do was to set out, as I understand it, what the English law is on this point and to saw how far, if at all, it is altered by the particular directive to which this Clause refers.

Mr. John: The right hon. Gentleman has devoted a great deal of this explanation to defining "organs of the company" as being the board of directors. Now he says that it is not an organ of the company which is being benefited but any one, two or three managing directors to whom power is delegated. Either we are carrying into effect the purpose of article 9(1), in which case we are dealing with organs of the company and the board of directors properly so called, or we are going much wider than this; and the


latter appears to be the case at the moment.

Mr. Noble: This is a difficult field. In the directive we have to deal with what it calls "the organs of the company". As we understand it, the only relevant organ of the company is the board of directors. If one assumes that a board of directors has delegated its functions in certain respects to one or more managing directors, he or they, for the purpose of this, then become the organ of the company. That is as I understand it, and I believe it is right.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I should like to make a non-legal intervention. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the directive again. I wonder whether he would accept that many of the difficulties in this debate have arisen from the English of article 9 of the regulation we are dealing with. It seems to us on this side of the Committee that paragraph (2) of that article is barely intelligible in the English in which it is drafted. I want to draw the Government's attention to this and to express the hope that when an authentic text is issued for 1st January, 1973, it will be in intelligible English. I would draw the attention of the Government to Campbell on Community Law in which the translation in paragraph 2307 of the same article of the same directive is in intelligible English.

Mr. Noble: If one layman may speak to another across the Floor of this House, I am bound to admit that, even if a text is authentic, when it is in legal language I sometimes find it very difficult to understand. Having said that, I certainly take the point the hon. and learned Gentleman has made.
The subsection does not aim at wholly relieving a person who contemplates entering into a transaction with the company of the need to make inquiries. However the company may be organised——

Mr. Elystan Morgan: My question concerns the point which the hon. Gentleman was just about to leave—the meaning of "directors" in this subsection. We all appreciate by now what the present state of the law is, and, even accepting that the terms of the directive are clear, nevertheless we must take

responsibility for the way in which a court would have to approach the question of interpreting this provision if it became law. At the moment it is perfectly clear that it is shrouded in uncertainty, and in those circumstances I would respectfully ask the Minister whether he would not be prepared to allow an Amendment to be made by adding after "directors" the words "collectively or singly or otherwise in accordance with powers lawfully conferred upon them by the said company". It seems to me that at the moment this is in a state of fundamental and fatal in precision and that that can be removed only by making an Amendment on these lines.

Mr. Noble: That is an attractive idea but I believe that it is totally inaccurate because I am advised that the position is absolutely clear and I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would make the position any different. I will continue with what I was saying and start again at the beginning of the sentence.
However the company may be organised, if the proposed transaction is important or of an exceptional nature the person contemplating entering into it would be wise to obtain an assurance that it had been decided on by the directors. In the exceptional case I have mentioned, the assurance he might obtain is that all decisions are made by the managing director and that the managing director has decided on the transaction in question. What the subsection does is relieve the person of the need also to enquire whether the transaction is within the capacity of the company and the powers of the directors.

Mr. John: To the extent, surely, that we are not incorporating article 9(2), because if the hon. Gentleman is right in his explanation about the limitation on the powers of the directors, article 9(2) says that the limit on the powers of the organs of the company—and that is a limitation on the directors—may never be relied upon against third parties even if they have been disclosed? So the fact is that, quite contrary to what the hon. Gentleman is now saying about being bound to inquire about the limitation on the powers of the directors, if we were carrying out article 9(2) he would never


be bound to do so, because the company could never rely upon it as against him.

Mr. Noble: Again I may get a carrier pigeon from the Official Box, but I am told that we do exactly in this Clause what we are required to do in article 9(2).
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen asked for an explanation of the concept of nullity which appears in Section III of the directive. Like him, I was a little surprised that this got mixed up with company law, but I understand that in some countries of the Six a company may be declared to be a nullity on the ground that there was a failure to observe some formality when it was incorporated. Section III of the directive is concerned with the protection of third persons from the effects of such a declaration.
In this country, a certificate of incorporation given by the registrar of companies in respect of an association is conclusive evidence that the association is a company authorised to be registered, and duly registered. A declaration of nullity cannot be made in Britain. We need to make no provision in this Clause based on Section III of the directive.
The subsection will make a useful change in our law on the lines recommended by the Jenkins Committee. It will also enable us to comply with obligations as a member of the Community. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull said, it kills two birds with one stone.
I think that the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East was perfectly right, that this goes a considerable way towards the recommendations of the

Jenkins Committee. It is not an attempt to implement those recommendations—that may be made later, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys-Williams) suggested, in a companies Bill—but it is moving in the right direction, the direction to which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked the Government to direct their attention on other matters.

My right hon. and learned Friend asked me whether dealing is confined to trading, and I think some other hon. Gentleman—perhaps the hon. Member for Pontypridd—also raised this. It is not, but dealing which is not trading may be unenforceable for other reasons than lack of vires. There might be no consideration for such a dealing, and in English law a contract for which no consideration or quid pro quo has been given cannot be enforced unless it be under seal.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) asked me why this did not apply also to local authorities and nationalised industries or corporations. The simple answer is that, as he suspected, it does not. All that we are doing in Clause 9 is to bring our law into conformity with the particular directive with which it is concerned. We are not trying to amend the whole of our company law in this section.

With those remarks, which I hope have cleared up at least some of the points, if not all of them, I recommend that the Committee should not accept this Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 216, Noes 241.

Division No. 259.]
AYES
[4.29 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cohen, Stanley


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Booth, Albert
Coleman, Donald


Allen, Scholefield
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Concannon, J. D.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bradley, Tom
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Crawshaw, Richard


Ashley, Jack
Buchan, Norman
Cronin, John


Ashton, Joe
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Atkinson, Norman
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dalyell, Tam


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Baxter, William
Cant, R. B.
Davidson, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Biffen, John
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Deakins, Eric


Bishop, E. S.
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund




Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Prescott, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lambie, David
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Driberg, Tom
Lamborn, Harry
Price, William (Rugby)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Probert, Arthur


Dunn, James A.
Latham, Arthur
Rankin, John


Edelman, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Ellis, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Rhodes, Geoffrey


English, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Evans, Fred
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Ewing, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roper, John


Faulds, Andrew
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fell, Anthony
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, Ted


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sandelson, Neville


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silverman, Julius


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)



Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Small, William


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marsden, F.
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stallard, A. W.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Hamling, William
Mikardo, Ian
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hardy, Peter
Millan, Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Swain, Thomas


Hattersley, Roy
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Molloy, William
Torney, Tom


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Urwin, T. W.


Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wallace, George


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oram, Bert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


John, Brynmor
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Padley, Walter
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Jones,Rt.Hn.Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles



Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Judd, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. John Golding and


Kaufman, Gerald
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. Ernest G. Perry


Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Dixon, Piers


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Burden, F. A.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Astor, John
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, G. B.


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Awdry, Daniel
Cary, Sir Robert
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Chapman, Sydney
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Batsford, Brian
Churchill, W. S.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)



Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cockeram, Eric
Emery, Peter


Benyon, W.
Cooke, Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Coombs, Derek
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper, A. E.
Fidler, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Boscawen, Robert
Cormack. Patrick
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Costaln, A. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Critchley, Julian
Fookes, Miss Janet


Braine, Sir Bernard
Crouch, David
Fortescue, Tim


Bray, Ronald
Dalkeith, Earl of
Foster, Sir John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Fowler, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul
Fox, Marcus







Fry, Peter
Loveridge, John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Gibson-Watt, David
Luce, R. N.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Gllmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McCrindle, R. A.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Goodhart, Philip
McLaren, Martin
Rost, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Royle, Anthony


Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Madel, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gray, Hamish
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Sharples, Richard


Green, Alan
Mather, Carol
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Simeons, Charles


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L mington)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Soref, Harold


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman
Speed, Keith


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire.W;
Spence, John


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sproat, Iain


Haselhurst, Alan
Money, Ernle
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hastings, Stephen
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Steel, David


Havers, Michael
Monro, Hector
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hayhoe. Barney
More, Jasper
Tapsell, Peter


Heath. Rt. Hn. Edward
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Higgins. Terence L.
Morrison, Charles
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hiley. Joseph
Mudd, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar
Tebbit, Norman


Holt, Miss Mary
Neave, Airey
Temple, John M.


Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hornby, Richard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nott, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Trew, Peter


Iremonger, T. L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


James, David
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Jessel, Toby
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pardoe, John
Waddington, David


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parkinson, Cecll
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jopling, Michael
Peel, John
Wail, Patrick


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Percival, Ian
Warren, Kenneth


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Weatherill, Bernard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pink, R. Bonner
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Kersaw, Anthony




Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wiggin, Jerry


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wilkinson, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Winterton, Nicholas


Kinsey, J. R.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kirk, Peter
Quenneil, Miss J. M.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kitson, Timothy
Raison, Timothy
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woodnutt, Mark


Lamont Norman
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Lane, David
Redmond, Robert
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Younger, Hn. George


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rees, Peter (Dover)



Le Marchant, Spencer
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Kenneth Clarke


Longden. Sir Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 239, Noes 221.

Division No. 260.]
AYES
[4.39 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Biggs-Davison, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Blaker, Peter
Cary, Sir Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boscawen, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bossom, Sir Clive
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Astor, John
Bowden, Andrew
Churchill, W. S.


Atkins, Humphrey
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Awdry, Daniel
Bray, Ronald
Clegg, Walter


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cockeram, Eric


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cooke, Robert


Batsford, Brian
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Coombs, Derek


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cooper, A. E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick


Benyon, W.
Burden, F. A.
Cormack, Patrick


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Carlisle, Mark
Costain, A. P.




Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison. Timothy


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dean. Paul
Kimball, Marcus
Redmond, Robert


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dixon, Piers
Kinsey, J. R.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kirk, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lamont, Norman
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn Conway)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rost, Peter


Emery, Peter
Le Merchant, Spencer
Royle, Anthony


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fidler, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Sharples, Sir Richard


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, R. N.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Simeons, Charles


Fortescue, Tim
MeCrindle, R. A.
Sinclair, Sir Georgo


Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fowler, Norman
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Soref, Harold


Fry, Peter
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Gibson-Watt, David
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Spence, John


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mather, Carol
Sproat, Iain


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maude, Angus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Steel, David


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)




Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Green, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdenshire,W.)
Tebbit, Norman


Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple, John M.


Gurden, Harold
Money, Ernle
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
More, Jasper
Trew, Peter


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hastings, Stephen
Murton, Oscar
Waddington, David


Havers, Michael
Neave, Airey
Walder, David (Clilheroe)


Hawkins, Paul
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wall, Patrick


Hayhoe, Barney
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Normanton, Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wilkinson, John


Holt, Miss Mary
Owen,Idris (Stockport, N.)
Winterton. Nicholas


Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hornby, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pardoe, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Parkinson, Cecil
Woodnutt, Mark


Howell, David (Guildford)
Peel, John
Worsley, Marcus


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Percival, Ian
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Younger, Hn. George


James, David
Pink, R. Bonner



Jessel, Toby
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Hush Rossi.


Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Biffen, John
Cant, R. B.


Allen, Scholefield
Bishop, E. S.
Carmichael, Neil


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)


Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Ashley, Jack
Booth, Albert
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Ashton, Joe
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Atkinson, Norman
Bradley, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman
Coleman, Donald


Baxter, William
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Concannon, J. D.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Crawshaw, Richard







Cronin, John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tam
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pentland, Norman


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davidson, Arthur
Judd, Frank
Prescott, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kerr, Russell
Probert, Arthur


Deakins, Eric
Kinnock, Neil
Rankin, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lambie, David
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Roberts,Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Driberg, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leonard, Dick
Roper, John


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul B.


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rowlands, Ted


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville


Ellis, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Evans, Fred
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ewing, Henry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Faulds, Andrew
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fell, Anthony
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius


Fisher, Mrs. Dorls(B'ham,Ladywood)
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Small, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Foley, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Foot, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marquand, David
Stallard, A. W


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marsden, F.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marshall. Dr. Edmund
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Strang, Gavin


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hamplon, Itchen)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hamling, William
Moate, Roger
Urwin, T. W.


Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William
Wallace, George


Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wellbeloved, James




White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hattersley, Roy
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Whitehead, Phillip


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Murray, Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Horam, John
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, Brian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oram, Bert
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Janner, Greville
Oswald, Thomas



Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Paget, R. T.
Mr. John Golding and


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


John, Brynmor
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

Sir Robin Turton: I beg to move Amendment No. 367, in page 16, line 39, leave out subsection (1).

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this Amendment we are discussing Amendment No. 460, in line 41, at end insert:
'including provisions against abuse by undertakings of a dominant position within the Common Market or a substantial part of it'.

Sir Robin Turton: Clause 10(1) is a glaring example of legislation by reference. It is so drafted that, should it be enacted unamended, those affected by its provisions would be quite unable to fathom which of their arrangements would be declared contrary to the public interest.
I have no doubt that it will be argued that this is the inescapable result of our joining the European Community. Should the 34 per cent. of the population who favour entry have their way against the 46 per cent. who are opposed to entry, this will be a confusion and uncertainty which will spread over the whole of our legislation. However, it is unfortunate that in an area where there is the problem of competition, especially with our neighbours in the Community, there should be this very great uncertainty.
I take as an example the issue decided on 4th April, 1971, in the Restrictive Practices Court. The court decided that it was contrary to the public interest for the National Farmers Union to advise its members on the prices to be charged or the terms of supply for cattle, sheep and pigs and for seed and nursery stock, or the prices that they should offer to dealers for agricultural machinery. That was in accordance with the 1956 Restrictive Practices Act.
On the Continent and in America exceptions are always made for agricultural bodies—groups of farmers—and agricultural products. In America the anti-trust laws are specially exempted from applying to farmers and to agricultural products. In the Community, the position is safeguarded by regulation 26 of 4th April, 1972, which makes it clear that
to avoid compromising the development of a common agricultural policy and also to ensure the existence of legal guarantees and the non-discriminatory treatment of the undertakings concerned
the Commission shall make special decisions with regard to the application of Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome. Article 2 of the regulation lays down that
Article 85(1) of the Treaty shall not apply to agreements, decisions and practices referred to in the preceding article which form an integral part of a national market organisation or which are essential for the attaining of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty.
It will be remembered that Article 39 lays down the common agricultural policy.
One has to look at Clause 10 against that background. It begins by declaring that Part I of the Restrictive Practices Act, 1956, shall apply to an agreement of the sort considered by Mr. Justice Mocatta in April, 1971, notwithstanding

that it is expressely authorised by article 26 of 1972. It goes on to give the court a discretion to refuse action or to delay taking action under Section 20 or under Section 22, which give it power to vary any decision that it has made.
What, then, is the position of the National Farmers Union should this Bill become law and should we enter the European Community? I have given the instance of that judgment of Mr. Justice Mocatta dealing with the marketing of livestock, seeds and so on. However, it has a far wider application in agriculture and especially in horticulture. All the arrangements that the National Farmers Union would like to make to advise its members on the grading of produce, the holding back from the market of horticultural produce which is belowstandard—matters like the Wisbech Strawberry Agreement—all come within this area, as do all long-term contracts for bacon pigs. At present the National Farmers Union is cribbed, cabined and confined in its efforts to give good advice which its continental and American competitors are allowed to give under existing law.
For a long time we have been pressing for the amendment of the Restrictive Practices Act to make it clear that farmers do not have to face the possibility of going to the Restrictive Practices Court when their agreement is to enable a number of small farmers to group together to obtain satisfactory prices for satisfactory produce. At present they cannot even give a market intelligence service. Therefore, I ask the Government to look again at subsection (1) because farmers require to know where they stand, especially as directly we enter the transitional period they will be in direct competition with their counterparts across the Channel. Unless we can get this clear, farmers will have one hand tied behind their backs. They will not be able to get the market intelligence or to make the arrangements necessary in agriculture.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy may say "Let them chance their arms, since we have given the Restrictive Practices Court the widest discretion possible". However, my right hon. and learned Friend cannot know the cost of going to that court and the burden that it represents to any small group of farmers or to the National


Farmers Union to embark on that system of litigation. Six years ago when the CBI went to the court the cost of its application ran into six figures. Today the costs of an application such as that would be a great deal more.
I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to enlighten me, but I cannot understand why Clause 2(1), which makes regulations directly applicable, should not apply in this case. If it did, the President of the Restrictive Practices Court would have to apply regulation 26 of 1972directly, and the farmer would know that he could not break these arrangements and that the NFU could do anything that COPA does on the Continent. It is most unsatisfactory to have it in this vague form with such a wide discretion. According to the drafting, the Restrictive Practices Court can come to a conclusion contrary to a regulation that was directly applicable in this country.
5.0 p.m.
What can be done? I ask the Government to withdraw the subsection and to redraft it to make it clear to the National Farmers Union and to other groups of farmers exactly where they stand under arrangements they may make for the grading and selling of their produce and the market intelligence connected with it. It is important that there should be no uncertainty.
If my right hon. and learned Friend finds difficulty in that, I suggest that, instead of redrafting the subsection, it should be left out altogether. It would not do any harm. Here we are dealing with regulations. Those who are learned in the law talked for a long time on the previous Clause about what was governed by directives. Where we have directives there is a need for legislation. When we have this rather unhappy habit of making things directly applicable, we should use them in our favour.
As an opponent generally of that noxious system, I can see advantages when dealing with the Restrictive Practices Court and the National Farmers Union. However, I am disappointed, when it comes to the advantage of British farmers, that the Government neglect that method and use this one which is causing so much disquiet. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend appreciates that it

is causing great concern to the farming industry. I pressed for many months, long before the question of entry, that this matter should be cleared up and that British farmers should be put on an equal footing with their competitors. I regret that the Government have made the Bill so unconscionably uncertain and harsh for British farmers.

Mr. Peter Shore: I think the Committee will have accepted the points made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) and his basic submission that the subsection—indeed, the whole of Clause 10—fails to do what it set out to do; namely, to clarify British law and its future concerning restrictive trade practices and the law of the Community which is about to be imported under Clause 2(1).
The fact that the Amendment appears in the names of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides should surprise no one. First, we have this common desire to elucidate and clarify what appears to be an extraordinarily muddled—indeed, dense—piece of drafting.
Secondly, we object on this Clause, as on others, to the furtive and appallingly muddled way of changing our laws and introducing a major amount of new law into our affairs.
Although the right hon. Gentleman made his point on a fairly narrow issue, I suspect that we would also agree about a third underlying point relating to the Community's competition policies which underlie Clause 10. We have certain agreement in that, however much we may take a different view on how far the State should intervene in the affairs of industry, it is far better for a British Government to do the intervening and to continue to have the right to intervene. This is one of the most important matters which are under threat and in dispute by the Community's competition policies.
First, I turn to the point regarding clarification of the subsection. My worries are not simply confined to farmers. Virtually all businesses, enterprises and traders in this country will find themselves in considerable difficulty in trying to inform themselves about the laws of the land relating to restrictive trade practices from 1st January, 1973.
We should not in any sense underplay the importance of this matter. We are dealing with an area in which firms and individuals are expected to know and obey not only laws which until recently they have not even had a chance of seeing, let alone understanding and reading, but laws which carry with them substantial penalties for disobedience. We should not ignore that point. Indeed, the fines which the Commission can impose upon firms which are in breach of Community obligations, in breach of the Community's competition policies or in breach of the regulations and other laws made by the Community and set out in this volume of Community law under the heading of "Competition" are very extensive. As far as I can judge, there appears to be no limit to the fines. This is not an empty threat. Fines running into several hundred thousand units of account have been imposed on firms for breaches of Community law.
So we have this unparalleled situation, As I said, virtually every enterprise in this country is brought within the ambit of a law which has not yet been discussed and will not be approved by the House of Commons, because we shall not, despite the greatest latitude by the Chair, have the chance of discussing it in any detail. We are allowed to make only a few references to it. Yet under the provisions of these laws enterprises in this country could be subjected to fines and penalties of the most serious kind.
One has a sense of being in almost a nightmare when discussing the Bill. I do not think that right hon. and hon. Members on either side ever thought they would be taking part in this kind of incredible charade in which we are all forced to play our part as a result of the manner in which the Bill seeks to bring us into line with or to import into this country the laws of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I understand the Clause simply gives the Registrar power not to pursue his remedies in the court, and the court need not necessarily enforce them. I cannot see how any new harsh law or penalty could conceivably be enaoted under the Clause. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether he is talking

about the European Court or the Restrictive Practices Court?

Mr. Shore: I was referring to the imported Community law which comes in under Clause 2(1) which sets out the main new laws which will affect us in this sphere and forces upon us this minor, though muddled, change in our restrictive trade practices legislation. That is the situation.
Let me turn to the detail of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. That Act set up the familiar machinery of a Registrar and the Restrictive Practices Court. It also, in Part I, enacted that a whole number of defined agreements between two or more business firms should be registered with the Registrar. The agreements covered include all manner of matters, such as prices, supply, processes of manufacture and the classes of persons from whom goods are to be obtained and to whom goods are to be sold. This comprehensive Act has been on the Statute Book since 1956.
On the face of it, the subsection now being debated seeks to continue to operate Part 1 of the 1956 Act after the entry date of 1st January, 1973. It says that the provisions of Part 1 of the 1956 Act shall continue to apply to an agreement
notwithstanding that it is or may be void by reason of any directly applicable Community provision".
It further states that its provisions shall apply to an agreement even if it is
expressly authorised by or under any such provision".
The situation, therefore, is that business agreements which, under Community law will be rendered void, or which, under Community law, are expressly authorised, have still to be registered with our own Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements. Whatever for? Why should they continue to be so registered if they have either been made void by the Community's own superior legislation or been explicitly exempted from voiding by the same Community law?
Are proceedings to be initiated in the British Restrictive Trade Practices Court against such firms? The odd thing is that the remaining part of subsection (1) authorises the RPC and the Registrar not to take proceedings as in the past they


would have done under Section 20 of the 1956 Act and in the light of the criteria affecting the public interest set out in Section 22, but permits them to do so
if and in so far as it appears to the court right so to do having regard to the operation of any such provision or to the purpose and effect of any authorisation or exemption granted in relation thereto".
That is extremely unclear. The lack of clarity has been referred to on both sides of the Committee, and we are not totally uninformed about legislation. We are, after all, dealing with a law that will bear upon thousands—indeed, tens of thousands—of British companies, firms and traders, including farmers and others, who want a simple and clear guide to the changes that are to be made in the law of this country and to the new laws which they are to be asked to obey which will be imported from Europe. They want to know whether there is a clash between the two, and if so, how these matters are to be resolved.
5.15 p.m.
I have no doubt that we shall hear some learned disquisition from whichever Minister replies to the debate, and no doubt there will be some explanation which we shall grudgingly come to the view makes more sense of the words of the subsection than appears to us on a simple and thoughtful reading of them to be the case. But I put it to the Treasury Bench that it is not merely Members of Parliament who have to be satisfied on this matter. It is necessary that the firms and enterprises concerned should be clear about what is expected of them.
I further put it to the Government that the real source of the confusion is that there are here two different systems of law affecting restrictive practices, monopoly practices, and so on. There is a residual British system which is being phased out in a rather clumsy and ambiguous way, and there is a new system of Community law which is presumably to be overriding.
Regardless of the merits of the two different systems of law, it seems that this is again an example of the sheer unwisdom of trying to make these great changes simply by removing a little bit of what appears to be in contradiction to the superior Community law rather

than by positively enacting the major new laws which will come into effect in this country. It is a great mistake to operate in that way. I think that in this matter, as in so many others, the Government have succumbed to the temptation of having a short Bill, regardless of the effects which its provisions will have on people outside and the great confusion that will be caused to them.
In the opening statement, as it were, from the Government during the Second Reading debate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did his best to put the matter clearly. Let me recall to the Committee what he said, because it illustrates as well as anything the real difficulties that we are in. The right hon. Gentleman said rather optimistically:
Clause 10 deals with restrictive trade practices. Its purpose is to clarify the relationship between United Kingdom and Community legislation.
One cannot do that if one does not even mention Community legislation in the first place. It is impossible to do it.
The right hon. Gentleman then said:
It ensures that the relevant United Kingdom authorities can comply with their Community obligations and that they have sufficient flexibility to avoid actions which could conflict with those obligations.
I do not know who will help the court to interpret the law. I have no doubt that it can be left to the court, but, clearly, it will have a great discretion in this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
It also saves British firms from being burdened with avoidable duplication of inquiries under the United Kingdom and Community Systems.
On the face of it, that is not so at all. On the contrary, the requirement to provide information to our own Registrar, which is written into the subsection, has now to co-exist with the new requirement to furnish information to the Commission. This is one of the great requirements of articles 17 and 27 of the Community legislation of 1962, the definitive laws of the Community in this sphere.
The Secretary of State—this adds to my point about the very serious difficulties everyone will be in—said:
Similar provision"—


that is, an amendment to our existing law—
is not needed in relation to United Kingdom monopolies and mergers legislation"—
as distinct from restrictive trade practices—
since both the initiation of inquiries and the taking of follow up action under our legislation are in the hands of Ministers who will themselves be under an obligation, by virtue of Clause 2, not to exercise their power in a way contrary to the Community provisions."—[Official Report, 16th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 446.]
So people in industry thinking in terms of how they may in future behave in relation to our monopoly legislation and mergers legislation no longer look at the relevant Statutes and say "Here is the guide." They can no longer look at the Community law, which only three or four months ago was translated for them. They have to inspect the mind of the Minister somehow to understand his intentions, unless the Minister tells them clearly and categorically—he has not done so yet—which of his powers under the monopolies and mergers legislation he intends to use and which of them he feels he must allow to lapse in order himself to conform with the superior legislation of the Community.
This is an appallingly complex matter and not at all what any serious person or, indeed, any well wisher, in the venture of joining the European Community on these terms would wish himself.
I hope that it will not be thought too strange, having dealt with this important matter of clarification, if I turn briefly to the substance of the new Community law which is to apply to virtually every business enterprise in the country from 1st January, 1973, and, at most, with a delay of six months to 1st July of that same year. What are the rules of competition embodied in Community law which is now to supersede our legislation in both the private and the public sectors? They embrace a number of very important categories.
First, there are restrictive trade practices, mainly agreements in restraint of trade between business enterprises. Second, there are abuses of large firms in what the Treaty of Rome calls "dominant positions". That is analogous, presumably, with our monopoly legislation.

Third, the competition policy deals directly with State trading monopolies under Articles 37 of the Treaty of Rome. Fourth, the Community law deals with State aids, both in the form of regional assistance and in the form of aid policies directed towards particular industries.
This great range of Community competition policy covers a very large part of the industrial, regional and structural policies that successive British Governments of both parties have found it necessary to pursue.
I shall say little about the first category, restrictive trade practices, except to point out one very important difference in approach between the Community and our own restrictive trade practices law. Whereas in Britain these practices are considered by a court working within certain guidelines of the public interest which are laid down in Section 22 of the 1956 Act, in the case of the Communities these matters are decided by the European Commission, which has the power to issue "cease" and "desist" orders in the form of decisions which are directly applicable throughout the Community and have the force of law.
What is not clear, either from the Clause or from previous ministerial statements—I make this last point to the Government Front Bench—is what in future is to be the ambit of Community law in this field and what is to be the residual area left to British authorities under the 1956 Act, and to what extent, too, British institutions are to act or to be asked to act as agents of the Community policy and Community enforcement? I hope that we shall get clear answers on these matters.
The second category concerns the so-called "dominant positions" We have been told nothing about this. It is obviously of great importance. Successive Governments have found it necessary to promote mergers in the United Kingdom, in different industries, in order to strengthen them against world competition. Shall we be able in the future to pursue such policies, and, if so, under what conditions? These are matters which ultimately are involved in Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome and in all the decisions of the Commission and the subsequent regulations which have flowed from that Article.
On the third matter, State trading monopolies, I have only one question. Are there any enterprises in Britain which come within this category and, therefore, under the particular disciplines of Article 37 of the Treaty of Rome? I hope for an answer to that.
The fourth and last category, State aids within the broad range of competition policy of the Community, is in many ways the most important to us. Shall we be allowed to assist particular firms and industries in the years ahead? On this occasion I shall say nothing about whether we can do this under the heading of regional policy because we have had a number of discussions about this and, while I cannot pretend to be satisfied, I do not wish to go over old ground when there is so much new territory to explore. But what about firms and industries which need assistance outside development and intermediate areas? I am not talking about abstract or hypothetical matters.
Only yesterday the Minister for Industrial Development announced a £14·2 million subvention to the firm of ICL to help to sustain this most important—indeed, this only—British computer firm. Few will doubt that this is necessary, and no one doubts that it is beneficial to the industry and to the British economy as a whole. But the aid given to ICL is authorised under Clause 8 of the Industry Bill, a Clause which expires in December, 1977, when we are supposed, at the end of the transitional period, to enter fully the European Communities.
Some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen try to persuade themselves and the rest of us that there is no relationship between these two dates, the date on which the ability to give aid to an industry expires and the date on which Britain becomes a full member of the Community, and that it is all a coincidence and we have nothing to worry about. But that will not do, and it cannot seriously now be argued.
I hope that the Committee will recollect the very interesting admissions prised out of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when these matters were discussed on 22nd May, 1972, on the Second Reading of the Industry Bill. Replying to an intervention by one of his hon. Friends, the Secretary of State said:

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the White Paper upon which the Bill is largely based has been the subject of consultation with the Commission in Brussels. No objection has been raised by the Commission.
In spite of a certain amount of uncertainty because the right hon. Gentleman did not fully understand the question that was put to him, later he returned to the same point and really stressed it. He said that he was giving guarantees against an over-liberal handout of money under the Industry Bill. He said:
Further, the powers conferred by Clause 8 are subject to important safeguards. They are limited to the transitional period of our entry to Europe."—[Official Report, 22nd May, 1972; vol. 837, c. 1011, 1019.]
That is, until the end of 1977. So that is a fairly clear statement and admission.
I need not go further than that except to remind the Committee—as I have reason to remind myself when I return, as I frequently do, to study the matter in these treaties—that there is stated within the Treaty of Accession, under article 135, a general limitation and statement of policy which is quite appalling and to which I am surprised no one has drawn attention before. Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession simply says:
If, before 31st December, 1977, difficulties arise which are serious and liable to persist in any sector of the economy or which could bring about serious deterioration in the economic situation of a given area, a new Member-State may apply for authorisation to take protective measures in order to rectify the situation and adjust the sector concerned to the economy of the common market.
The second paragraph says:
On application by the State concerned, the Commission shall, by emergency procedure, determine without delay the protective measures which it considers necessary, specifying the circumstances and the manner in which they are to be put into effect.
5.30 p.m.
Let there be no doubt that we have to have specific authorisation to continue State-aided industrial policies outside the regions—and that is another matter altogether which we can discuss later—explicitly until 31st December, 1977. We have to satisfy the Commission. Its decision, not ours, will dominate. Has the Minister asked the Commission for its authorisation in the case of ICL? Or is it just a matter that since we have not formally joined yet, and will not until 1st January, 1973, he simply consulted


it and obtained its consent under the procedures for consultation which are defined on pages 128 to 130 of the Treaty of Accession?
Would the Minister now frankly accept, so that we can all know, that even this limited power of the State to intervene in industry, subject as it is to the Commission's approval, will expire at the end of 1977? It is no good hon. Members pretending that provisions of the Rome Treaty relating to competition policy in all its different aspects, whether restrictive practices, monopoly practices or State aids to regional policy, are dormant or unused. As the volume of Community law indicates, and as the annual reports of the Commission make clear, the Commission has been active in these matters and increasingly so in the last two years. Only last year the Commission laid down the law on regional policy and defined the so-called central areas in which State aid is to be curtailed. It was only last year that it made its decision in Article 86 to prevent a merger which had already been agreed—I am not interested in the merits of the case; it might have made the right decision—of which it had disapproved. It was only in 1970 that the Commission ruled on a whole number of occasions against particular State intervention policies practised by the Belgian, Dutch, Italian and German Governments.
I shall refer briefly to the Commission's report of 1970 in this respect. Again and again we find this kind of reference:
It also went ahead with its investigation of the German measures connected with the remodelling of regional policy concerning which it had initiated the Article 93(2) procedure".
The initiation of that procedure occurs again and again in the 1970 report. I hope the Committee is familiar with the procedure. In case there is anyone who does not understand what this refers to, I shall now make sure that he does. Article 93(2) gives power to the Commission to rule upon and rule out particular acts of industrial policy and of State aid by the member countries. I am speaking not of theoretical things, of dormant provisions, but of the reality and the actuality of powers used and reported upon in the annual reports of the Commission. The operative part of Article 93(2) is

If, after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the Commission finds that aid granted by a State or through State resources is not compatible with the Common market having regard to Article 92. or that such aid is being misused, it shall decide that the State concerned shall abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Commission".
It goes on to say that if the State does not comply with this, the Commission will have recourse to the European Court, which will adjudicate upon the matter.
Let us have no more pretence about what is involved. A very considerable power over economic, industrial, regional and employment policy is clearly ceded to the institutions of the Community in the competition policy. The closest we get to this—and we hardly get at the matter in our discussions—is in consideration of it in this Clause 10 which touches upon one minor part of this great and important field, a field which is distinguished in being one in which the Commission has much greater power than in almost any other part of the treaty.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the Commission can tell this country and the Government not to subsidise such concerns as Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, ICL or anyone else, and that if the Commission does that we in Parliament cannot do anything about it?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has put the matter in all its brutal simplicity. That is the correct interpretation. We lose the power to do these things. It does not matter whether a particular course of action is wise or not; the matter becomes subject to the superior judgment and power of the European Commission and the Council of Ministers which we have never elected.
This is a very serious matter and I shall certainly associate myself with the request by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that the subsection should be withdrawn and the matter should be clarified. We urge upon the Government that they should try to undo the damage which I am afraid they will otherwise create if they try in their way to make major changes in our laws.

Mr. Robert Redmond: I have not previously spoken in Committee on the Bill, but I want to oppose the Amendment. In doing so, I shall


in a sense be continuing what I had to say about small firms in a debate which I was fortunate enough to be able to initiate on a Private Member's Motion recently. There were not then so many Opposition Members present.
The Clause and the Amendment are to some extent technical. I am reminded of the story about Lord Hartington, who yawned when addressing the House during the reign of Queen Victoria and said "I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this subject is so damned dull." This is a dull subject, but a very important one, particular to the small and medium-sized firms.
I bow to the superior knowledge of farming possessed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). I know practically nothing about farming, but I hope that he will accept that I know something about industry, and particularly the smaller firms. My right hon. Friend talks about the farmers' hands being tied. I hope to show that if the Amendments were agreed to and the subsection were deleted the small and medium-sized firms would have at least half a hand tied behind their backs against their bigger competitors. In effect, the Restrictive Trade Practices Act would automatically apply.
I am sure that small and medium-sized firms will experience a great change on our entry into the Common Market. There will be a change of management attitudes, a change in the competition and so on.
Until last autumn I was quite uncommitted on the question of support for British entry. I was not prepared to commit myself on behalf of my constituents until I had consulted industry in the constituency. I was uncommitted until last September, when I had completed a detailed study of the effect of entry on the smaller firms in my constituency. Having made that study, though I do not accept the principal arguments against entry, I understand them. What I do not understand is the attitude behind the Amendment. As Parliament has already accepted the principle of entry, and has agreed to other Clauses, though it is still possible to oppose the Bill on Third Reading, it is a great mistake to say that the Bill can become law without the subsection. If it did, we should have total

and automatic operation of our present restrictive trade practices legislation, which above all would penalise the small and medium-sized companies.

Sir Robin Turton: As I understand it, as we have passed Clause 2(1) any restrictive trade practices regulations of the Community are directly applicable in law, and, therefore, my hon. Friend's argument is going into reverse. If the subsection were deleted, we should be governed purely by Clause 2(1), which is a protection the small businessmen require, just as it is a protection the farmers require.

Mr. Redmond: That is a matter of opinion. It is certainly not the opinion of the Confederation of British Industry's Small Firms Council. It is certainly not the opinion of anyone who has spoken to me or advised me on the matter. The point I was coming to was that if the subsection were deleted and there were automatic operation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, that would penalise the small firms. The big firms, the international companies, would simply take their businesses away from where they come under the Act.

5.45 p.m.

Some people say that the subsection does not go far enough and that we should insert in the Bill something clearly saying that small firms up to a given size need not notify the Registrar when they begin to operate within trading agreements and the like. I include the CBI in that. I should like to read an extract from a letter written to me by the officer of the CBI concerned with the small firms. He asked me to make this point in the debate on small firms, but I only referred to it as I was not prepared to go into such detail then. I should like now to state some of the points he made.

The letter, dated 31st May, was written by Mr. H. J. Gray, who said:
…there is one point I would like to make, and that is that in administering our restrictive trade practices legislation the Department of Trade and Industry might pay particular attention to the methods adopted by the Commission in so far as small firms are concerned and permit them without the necessity to notify the Registrar to enter into cooperative agreements which might otherwise be contrary to the provisions of our Acts, provided the firms concerned do not exceed a specified size and their combined sales of any particular products within the enlarged Community do not exceed a specified figure. This would not only encourage firms to consider what they might do


in this way but it would also provide them with the necessary assurance that they would not be in any danger of being called to appear before the Court if they acted in this manner. United Kingdom firms would moreover then be on all fours with small firms within the Community instead of being handicapped as they may well be at present as a consequence of our legislation, or at least their fear of it.
That may be a point my right hon. Friend was trying to make, but we must not repeal the restrictive trade practices legislation simply because we are entering the Common Market. If there were a need to amend the Act in the light of our experience in the Common Market, that would be a matter for Parliament later.

I do not see how anyone can want us to enter the Community with half a hand tied behind our backs. Therefore, I ask the sponsors of the Amendment to consider the matter very carefully. If their opposition is to the principle of entry, fair enough, but it should not be carried so far as to oppose the subsection.

For many years the small firms have been wanting to enter the Community and be able to compete on all fours with their opposite numbers in the Common Market. [An Hon. Member: "Some of them."] Ten years ago, when the Macmillan Government applied to enter, I had the honour to be chairman of the North-West Export Club, an organisation consisting of small companies interested in exporting. We discussed the principle of entry then, and the small firms in that area were anxious to get into the Common Market because it was to their advantage. I was not satisfied last autumn that that necessarily applied to small firms in my constituency, which is why I discussed the matter in detail with them in just the same way as we had discussed it in detail 10 years before. I was completely satisfied that it was to the advantage of those small companies, and that is why I am in favour of entering. We do not want them to have their hands tied behind their backs.

Mr. John Farr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way.

Mr. Redmond: I have finished.

Mr. Farr: Before my hon. Friend sits down——

The Second Deputy Chairman: Mr. Deakins.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Mallalieu. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) may wish to intervene a little later, and as I do not think there will be all that many speakers in the debate perhaps he will be able to take part.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) seemed to be doing a great deal of special pleading. It seems to me that the small and medium-sized companies, if the hon. Gentleman is truly representing their opinion, are hankering to get rid of our restrictive trade practices legislation, and think that a backdoor way of doing it is by entering the Common Market so that they can get together with their competitors on the Continent and try to carve up the market between them. That is the sort of thing that goes on in British industry. I have as much experience of British industry as the hon. Gentleman in this regard.

Mr. Redmond: I do not argue that many people in this House have more experience of British industry than I have. However, if the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) thinks that small firms can possibly even start to carve up the market between them as big monopolies can, he shows that he does not understand small firms. Of course, he was not present at the debate on small firms.

Mr. Deakins: One is not always present in this Chamber when subjects are discussed in which one is interested. The hon. Member for Bolton, West seemed to be suggesting—this is the point which I have against his remarks—that restrictive practices legislation is not good for small firms, when, in fact, it is a protection to small firms. It is much more restrictive to large industries than to small or medium-sized businesses. The carving up of the market may not be within the capacity of small firms within the Common Market, but many of them are looking forward to restrictive trading agreements with their competitors on the Continent and, if not to carve up the market, to fixing selling prices and so on. That is the sort of restriction which we have and perhaps from which the


hon. Gentleman and his small firms may be hoping to escape.
The hon. Gentleman said that the absence of the subsection would affect small firms rather than large firms, and that large firms are likely to flee these shores if something is not done. Of course, we have had restrictive practices legislation since 1956. It could not honestly be said by any hon. Member in this Committee that large firms have left the country or abandoned their operations here because of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956 or its successor, the 1968 Act.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) moved the Amendment in rather a narrow manner. The right hon. Gentleman was concerned purely with farming. Now that the Amendment has been moved, one has the right and obligation to discuss it on a wider basis. I take the right hon. Gentleman up on one point. The case in which the NFU was hauled before the Restrictive Practices Court either last year or the year before, concerned a boycott which it had tried to promulgate on livestock markets in this country. Whatever may be the rights and wrongs of restrictive trade agreements, no Government, no country in the Common Market, will willingly allow a firm or an institution like the NFU, which has a dominant position and has a great deal of influence over its members, to exercise a boycott on the whole marketing function.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that as a result of that judgment the NFU has found itself with its hands tied in a far wider way than the matter of issuing instructions to members about boycotting markets. If I may say so, it is a classic case of being hoist with one's own petard. The NFU was unwise to enter upon that boycott, which was not only restrictive but inconvenient for those who have to work in the livestock and meat industry. The boycott did not have as much effect as it hoped. The net result is a ruling of the court which binds the NFU and has restricted it from doing other useful things which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, including market agreements between groups of producers on a co-operative basis.
The future is very much in question. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point

that if our agricultural competitors on the Continent are to be free of these restrictions, or at least free of the general restrictions which apply on the Continent which are to be modified in respect of agricultural trade agreements, it is only fair and proper that the same should apply in this country. But that is not what is being proposed in subsection (1).
I turn to the Clause, which will repay some detailed examination. I begin by asking one or two minor questions concerning drafting and the meaning of the Clause. I have no doubt that the Ministers in charge of the Bill will be able to answer these questions easily. Since the Bill is so perfect and no amendment is necessary, every single word must have been justified and weighed in the balance before it was decided whether it should be left out or put in. The two words to which I want to draw attention are in subsection (1)—"…or exemption…"
I hope that the Committee will bear with me while I explain my reasoning for putting this point to the Ministers in chargs of the Bill. In the first part of the subsection, we are told that the Community can have two sorts of provision which may effect restrictive agreements liable to be registered in this country. We are told in the subsection that an agreement may be
…void by reason of any directly applicable Community provision.
That is my first example—"void". We are then told that an agreement can be
… expressly authorised by or under any such provision.
We have two categories of action by the Community—usually the Commission or the court—in dealing with restrictive agreements on the Continent—they can make them void or they can authorise them.
Then we come to the second part of subsection (1) which gives discretionary power to the Registrar and the court whether they should proceed in respect of agreements where the Community has taken some action. We have the two cases covered where an agreement is void—that is covered in the second part of the subsection—and also where the agreement is expressly authorised. But we are then given a third category of Community action in respect of restrictive trade agreements, namely,"…or exemption…",


which can apply only to Community exemption.
There is another form of exemption relating to the 1968 Act, but that is not relevant here. We are dealing in the subsection with Community action which has a bearing on restrictive practices legislation and action in this country. Is it the case that the Community can exempt an agreement? If the Community can exempt an agreement, why is there no mention of this Community power in the first part of the subsection? If there is no such Community power, why is a theoretical power of exemption referred to in the second part of the subsection? If the Community can exempt provisions from national restrictive practices legislation, there should be dual reference to exemption both at the beginning of the subsection and where there is reference to discretionary powers given to the Registrar not to proceed with the particular agreement. If the Community cannot exempt any restrictive trade agreement, which I strongly suspect is the case, why is there reference to exemption in the second part of the subsection, which does not logically tie up with the first part of the subsection?
My next question refers to Section 8 of the 1956 Act, where we are told about "excepted" and not "exempted" agreements. I shall refer to the wording of the 1956 Act at Section 8:
This Part of this Act does not apply to any agreement which is expressly authorised by any enactment…
Do the words "any enactment" refer basically to the United Kingdom legislation or must they now be construed as meaning "any Community enactment"? We have been told earlier that such directly applicable Community provisions shall be regarded as virtually Acts of Parliament or Statutory Instruments. Many of them, as we know—it has been a matter of controversy—are being passed directly into the law of this country without Parliament having any say. If the words "any enactment" in Section 8 of the 1956 Act cover Community enactments from now on or from 1st January, 1973, does that mean that the Community will be able to give authorisation to exceptions under the 1956 Act? If so, since we know that Community regulations have a mandatory power in this

country, does this not mean that the Common Market will be authorising exceptions from the operation of our restrictive practices legislation in a mandatory way and yet here we are, in subsection (1), not giving a mandatory effect to Community provisions which void or authorise an agreement?

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

6.0 p.m.

It appears to me that there is at least some uncertainty as between the effect of Section 8 of the 1956 Act and what is intended here. Either the Community can lay down the law on particular agreements for this country or it cannot. It it can do so, why is it not being allowed to do so in subsection (1)? If it cannot do so, what is to be the future effect of Section 8 of the 1956 Act, since that includes words, "any enactment"?

I come to the main point at issue in this subsection. In the 1956 Act, a clear mandatory and statutory duty is laid on the Registrar under Section 1(2), which states:
The Registrar shall be charged with the duty of…taking proceedings before the Court…in respect of agreements of which particulars are from time to time entered or filed in the register.
That is a mandatory power. There is no discretion whatever. But in Section 20(1) of the 1956 Act, one finds that the power of the court to look into and make a decision on an agreement is also mandatory. So we have a mandatory power on the Registrar to bring before the court, and a mandatory power on the court to consider, and make a decision on, a particular agreement under the 1956 Act.

But in Clause 10(1) of the Bill we are introducing a completely new concept. We are giving a discretionary power to the Registrar and to the court. What are the circumstances in which this discretion given to the Registrar and the court would not be exercised? Since there is discretion we have a right to know the Government's intention. Since they have departed from the mandatory duty on the Registrar and the court, in which circumstances do they feel that discretion would or would not be exercised?

The argument is not that this is a rather remote legal point. It is that until the


matter is cleared up there will be great uncertainty for businesses in this country which enter into restrictive agreements with, perhaps, competitors on the continent. They need to know whether, in addition to having to register such agreements under the 1956 Act, they would be liable to be brought before the court. If it is the intention that they should not be brought before the court, why not say so in the Clause? By leaving the matter in this way and giving discretionary power to the Registrar and the court, one leaves a great deal of ground for alarm and concern on the part of those firms likely to enter into business arrangements of one sort or another, whether restrictive or not, with competitors overseas.

This brings me to the main Regulation 17 of 1962, which sought to implement the provisions of Article 85 of the Rome Treaty. Here again, a great deal of uncertainty is likely to be engendered for business firms in this country as to the precise meaning of the regulation. Article 85 is a rather vague and in some ways self-contradictory article so far as restrictive practices legislation is concerned, but the regulation which seeks to interpret and put it into effect is, if anything, even more vague and imprecise. I particularly draw attention to Article 4(2) of Regulation 17/62, which excludes certain agreements. This is not just a particular agreement but a whole category of agreements about which the Community has said it will not take action. Article 4(2) of the Regulation states:
Paragraph I shall not apply to agreements, decisions or concerted practices where: 
(1) the only parties thereto are undertakings from one Member State and the agreements, decisions or practices do not relate either to imports or to exports between Member States;
On the face of it, that would seem to leave most of our restrictive agreements and restrictive practices legislation completely unharmed and unaffected by the operation of the Community provisions. On the other hand, it could be claimed that almost any agreement between trading companies in this country, whether in respect of goods to be supplied, prices, processes of manufacture, and so on, could in some way affect imports or exports indirectly.

Mr. Shore: I am following my hon. Friend with attention. Am I right in believing

that he takes the view that under Article 4(2)(1) the exemption stands on its own and is not related to the succeeding paragraphs (2) and (3)? It is not clear, There is no "and" or "or". Perhaps we can get clarification from the Minister.

Mr. Deakins: I would not claim to be an expert on interpreting Community law. I dare say that a whole class of lawyers is studying the regulations and, no doubt, our debates and Community decisions. If there is to be an authoritative answer, it must come from those in charge of the Bill, who must have studied Article 4(2) of Regulation 17 with great care before framing Clause 10 of the Bill.
Another point which has puzzled several hon. Members is the obligation to register in respect of agreements which are voided or expressly authorised by the Community, even though it is unlikely, under the discretionary power given to the Registrar and the court, that such agreements will ever be brought before the court. Is there still an obligation to register such an agreement, if indeed there is to be no intention of either bringing it before the court or allowing the court to make an unfavourable verdict upon it? If so surely the Registrar's file will get cluttered up by agreements which will never come before the court, a useless and time-consuming exercise which surely would serve no useful purpose.
This insistance that Community-authorised or voided agreements should still be registered under the 1956 Act is peculiar, since under the 1968 Act, we allow certain classes of agreement to be exempt from registration. Here I draw attention to another anomaly coming into our law by this Clause—that certain categories of agreement which are judged to be in the national interest and to conform to the five or six criteria laid down in Section 1(2) of the 1968 Act are exempt from registration but that another category is not exempt from registration, yet may never be brought before the court.
Surely, if restrictive agreements can be exempt by statutory authority—in the 1968 Act—we should be consistent in our legislation and insist that in Clause 10 we go the same way and allow those agreements which are either voided or expressly authorised by the Community to be exempt from registration on the lines of


the exemptions given in the 1968 Act. That is an anomaly which I cannot understand.
I come to a point raised by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and briefly alluded to by the hon. Member for Bolton, West—the potential conflict between the provisions of Clause 10(1) and the provisions of Clause 2(1). That is a very important point because a Common Market regulation which expressly authorises a restrictive agreement is an enforceable Community right under Clause 2(1). Perhaps the Committee could turn back to that Clause: any such regulation—and Clause 2(1) deals with regulations—
shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and folowed accordingly;".
In Clause 10(1) we are told that even if there is an express Community regulation authorising a restrictive trade practices agreement, nevertheless that does not automatically pass into the law of this country. There is still an obligation to register. There is no mandatory power on either the Registrar or the court not to proceed. The fact that we are given discretionary power means that there is a potential theoretical conflict between the power to bring such an agreement before the court for adjudication and the expressly enforceable provision of Clause 2(1).
I do not know what the outcome would be. I do not know whether the Government are aware that conflict exists. Those who examine the wording of these two subsections will see that there is a potential conflict as long as the Registrar and the Restrictive Trade Practices Court have a discretionary power in respect of whether to take action under the 1956 Act in respect of agreements which the Community has expressly authorised. Under Clause 10(1), Community regulations—which are supposed to be directly enforceable in this country under Clause 2(1)—may be disregarded. There are two possibilities. A void agreement—an agreement voided by the Communities under the provisions of Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome—could nevertheless be approved by the Restrictive Trade Practices Court and therefore removed from the Register in accordance with the provisions of the 1956 Act. Alternatively, an agreement which is expressly authorised by the Communities could be rejected by

the Restrictive Trade Practices Court under the 1956 Act, as long as there is a discretionary power on the Registrar and the court. The Clause does not say that where agreement is expressly authorised by the Communities it shall not be brought before the Restrictive Trade Practices Court. The wording makes that clear.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has alluded to wider issues. There is an important point that the Commission, under the restrictive practices legislation in the Treaty of Rome, is invested with executive and judicial powers. I regard that as a monstrous confusion of the powers which in this country we have always gone to great lengths to separate.
We know that the Commission can fine firms under Articles 15 and 16 of Regulation 17 of 1962. It can act as prosecution, judge and jury under the terms of Article 19 of Regulation 17 of 1962. That is a monstrous position. It is one we should not accept. We should reject that provision. The Common Market attitude to restrictive practice is not the same as ours. Its provisions are much more widely drawn than are ours.
I understand the expressions of hope the hon. Member for Bolton, West put forward on behalf of small firms. Restrictive practices legislation in the Community is far less onerous than is our own under the 1956 and 1968 Acts. I am not seeking to argue the political point whether it should be more or less onerous.
6.15 p.m.
There are a number of other anomalies to which the Committee's attention should be drawn. There is a definition of public interest in paragraph 3 of Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome. One needs to contrast that definition with our own very rigorous definition of what is in the public interest in Clause 1 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1968. There is an exemption for certain agreements in Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome, particularly where consumers may benefit from restrictive trade practices agreements.
If one compares the vague wording of Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome with the very strict wording laid down in the 1968 Act, particularly in Section 1(2) of that


Act, one sees that we are adopting a much more rigorous approach to the task of protecting the consumer—and ensuring that there are no restrictive practices unless they can be strongly justified—than is the case in the Community.
Here are the seeds of potential future conflict between our own legislation and that of the Community. This is the heart of the matter: the definition of what is a restrictive agreement. In Section 6(1)(e) of the 1956 Act we refer to categories of restrictive agreements which have to be registered under the Act. But there is no mention of those categories in Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome. Our courts could void or undo an agreement which would be legal under Community law but not under our existing restrictive trade practices legislation.
What is to be the position of the companies concerned? I have referred to the great deal of uncertainty because of the conflict between our legislation and that of the Community. Our firms will have to abandon restrictive trade practices for home market purposes but, authorised directly by Community provisions, retain them for cross-frontier transactions concerned with imports and exports. If that is the case it will create a great deal of difficulty for British industry, for the courts, for the authorities, in seeking to decide whether an agreement is expressly authorised under Community law, and, if so, what the consequences are for the home market as a result of that restrictive agreement.
The Community has not made up its mind—this is a metaphysical point—what it wants so far as competition is concerned. The Treaty of Rome preaches the virtues of free competition in every article. The Community recognises that one cannot always have free and open competition all the time if one wants to make economic progress. Certain restrictions may be necessary, for various reasons. The only exception given in the Common Market legislation concerns restrictions which do not eliminate competition in a substantial part of the market.
Would the words "substantial part of the market" in Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome apply to Great Britain or would they have to apply to an area wider than Great Britain? If they apply to a wider area of the Common Market than Great

Britain, then many of our firms with restrictive agreements confined to this country may rest content. If the words "dominant position" were held to apply to Great Britain, then—since we are a substantial part of the market in the Common Market for any commodity— that will cause a great deal of anxiety to our businessmen. The Common Market is muddled about its motives and its approach to the problem of restrictive practices, monopolies and mergers.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: No.

Mr. Deakins: The Common Market wishes to see more competition but dare not go the whole hog. It knows that in the last resort if there is unrestricted competition one will undoubtedly reach a stage at which there will be market dominance by one major firm. That is what it does not wish to see.
I hope that the questions I have asked are not too technical and detailed, but if I cannot ask them in Committee, I do not know when I can ask them. I hope that the Minister will give some clarification on those important issues.

Mr. Ridley: I should like to try to help the Opposition to carry this limping debate through to the time when the guillotine falls. It must be acknowledged that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) made a mammoth contribution to that end. It is extraordinary, thinking back to the debate on the timetable Motion, that we should still be an hour and a half ahead of the programme after having had debates such as the last one on ultra vires, and this one in which nothing can be found for hon. Members to say. This shows that it would have been much better if less time had been given to this low-level stuff and instead my right hon. Friends had brought in their Bill on competition and used this day for the Second Reading. That would have been a valuable addition to the country's powers against monopolies and restrictive practices and would have achieved far more than the speeches to which we have been listening.
Secondly, I should like to help the Opposition by explaining what, as I see it, this simple matter is all about. It is simply an endeavour to achieve competition and to prevent mergers and restrictive practices which span frontiers,


which are cross-national, whereas the prevention of restrictive practices and monopolies within the individual nation State is left to the national authorities. It is a very simple and perfectly obvious proposition. In the light of that, I do not find difficulty in reading this subsection, because it is conceivable, indeed likely, that there will be certain restrictive practices which have hitherto been register able, in some cases justiciable, which will conflict with some Community policy or other and therefore the court has to be given power not to rule or indeed to change its judgments where they conflict.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), who introduced this Amendment, quite rightly put his finger on one such area, and there may be others. I will come to the area discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond)—small firms—in a moment. Certainly agriculture is one such area, and where there is conflict it seems natural and right to allow the court discretion not to rule or to reverse its previous judgments. Hon. Members argue that this should be spelled out in legislation. How can it be spelled out, because whether an agreement conflicts with a ruling of the Community is not a finite question; it is in itself a justiciable question. This is the answer to most of what the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West said. There may well be a Community directive which promotes competition or allows a restrictive practice, whichever it may be, in a certain area of industry, trade or commerce. Whether that conflicts with the registered practice which the Registrar has before him is not finite; it is a matter of judgment. Therefore, the only way to deal with this is to give him the power to exempt a restriction when in his opinion it is right to do so, with, of course, the ultimate decision of the courts lying behind that.
I also draw the attention of hon. and right hon. Members to the second subsection which it seems should be read with the first, whereby information about directly applicable Community provisions affecting the agreement is to be given to the Registrar under regulations made in the parent Act. Where this conflict might arise, so far as I can make out, it is the Government who have to make

a regulation setting out what it is that could be in conflict and what could be relevant to the thoughts of the court.
The figure mentioned by my right hon. Friend arises because we are changing from one state of affairs to another. I have sympathy with the points he reasonably put forward, which was taken up and mixed with the usual mass of fears and dark threats which are always produced in the speeches of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore). It seems that whether we go through Clause 2(1) or through this Clause, the important point is to get the Bill on to the Statute Book so that the determination of the point relating to farmers' unions can be made. Until that is done it will be impossible to have an answer. It would be much quicker under this Clause, because the farmers' unions could go to the Registrar as soon as the Act received Royal Assent and ask, "What is the answer?", whereas they would otherwise have to wait upon the Government under Clause 2(1).
I wanted to say a word about small firms. I, too, have a great interest in this. As I see it, the Community rules on competition do not impinge upon small firms in this country. There is a fear among our small firms that if a proportion of them get together to form reasonably sized co-operatives, they will infringe existing restrictive trade practices legislation in this country. The truth of the matter is that it depends entirely upon the proportion of them that wish to get together. It seems utterly wrong that what could be achieved by a merger, by taking over "X" number of small firms and forming one company, should not also be capable of achievement by co-operative agreement between a similar number. That should be allowable under our present legislation, and I believe that it is.
What is not allowable is that they should all get together—or a substantial proportion of them should get together—to make an agreement designed to uphold the price or to squeeze out competitors. That position is not changed by our joining the Community. We are still responsible for our own internal competitive policy and the concept that all the small firms in one industry throughout the countries of the Ten should find


it possible to make a restrictive agreement among themselves is so unrealistic that it is unlikely ever to come about. It would be contrary both to Community policy and to British domestic policy.
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West said, but I do not believe that our joining the Community will lead to a great loosening of the present rules in relations to small firms. Equally, I think that many small firms do not know of the opportunities under existing legislation for applying for exemption so that they may pursue a co-operative agreement provided that it is of a reasonable scale and nature.
Community competition policy is solely for the purpose of ensuring that there are Community rules about competition between nations. Domestic policy remains, and it seems reasonable that we can fix our own competitive policy at home. When we consider mammoth companies such as the British Steel Corporation, ICL or similar concerns which may have dominant positions in this country, we may be prepared to accept that situation for various reasons—I do not want to argue the merits of that point. It is all right from our point of view that this should be so. It ceases to be all right from a Community point of view if those large and dominant firms are given unfair advantages compared with similar organisations in other States.
It is not a question of having within one State one dominant firm which can be controlled by various means; it is a question of allowing one Government, with the resources of their taxpayers, to offer an unfair competitive advantage as against other companies in other countries. That would be something which should not be tolerated and the Community is absolutely right to lay down safeguards ensuring that it is not tolerated. The practice has been not to prevent money from being given to firms, particularly firms which have run into deficit or have serious problems, but to prevent money from being given to firms for the express purpose of acquiring a competitive advantage over other firms.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Skeet: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the dominant position is

in one market or in the Community market, because that is the point to which we were referring.

Mr. Ridley: I am talking solely about the Community market. Indeed, all these questions of large companies and subsidies seem to me to be relevant only within the concept of the Community market. It would be a mad world if each nation State were able to subsidise its firms in a certain, possibly competitive, way against other nation States and the Community were unable to intervene to prevent that crazy situation. There is also a move on the restrictive policies front towards some alignment of subsidies to induce firms to go to difficult areas so that one nation State does not have an advantage as compared with another.
All these things are sensible, but the right hon. Gentleman talked as though they were dark plots to deprive us of our birthright of freedom. Not a bit of it. It seems to me that these are valuable common rules of behaviour which we should do well to accept. I do not believe that there is anything in this Clause to worry the Opposition.
Half of what I have said goes well beyond the scope of the Clause. The narrow point whether Community rules should be allowed to override our own Restrictive Practices Court is admirably dealt with in the Clause and I welcome being allowed, by your generosity, Mr. Godman Irvine, to stray into the wider issues of Community competitive policy. Instead of fearing it, as the Opposition seem to do, I welcome it as a wider market and a wider sphere in which our industry can succeed.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I must say that I envy the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) his ability to pronounce these matters to be simple and clear to him. To me and to others they seem exceedingly confusing, and nothing more so than the inter-relationship between this Clause and Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty. I do not think it can be argued away simply by saying that in the one case there is domestic legislation and the domestic situation, which is dealt with by domestic law, and in the other case we have Community law, because these things are inter-connected. It is not as


simple as that, and in future there are likely to be clashes between Community law in relation to the promotion of competition, as they call it, and domestic legislation.

Mr. John Mendelson: I am sure that other hon. Members recall that the hon. Gentleman used to say that the affairs of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders were extremely simple whereas the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry now finds them extremely complex.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend's point is well taken. These matters are rarely simple in a complex society and I should have thought that the Government had learned that lesson by now.
I want to raise the question, very briefly, of the inter-relationship between the monopolies legislation of the Community—that is, Article 86 and the question of the dominant position of a firm in the Community market—and our domestic legislation. There may be some difficulties in the future in this field. No body has referred as yet to the latest decision of the Commission on the Continental Can case, which seems to be extremely far-reaching and to impinge on and in some ways be contradictory to our own monopolies legislation. As I read that case—and I accept that it was decided on its own facts and that future situations may be different—there are two very important pronouncements to be considered, and we should get the Government's views on these when discussing this Clause.
The first point which has been laid down in that case is the meaning of "dominant position within the market". In that case the Commission said that a market of 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. would amount to a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86. As I understand it, under our own monopolies legislation a dominant position, although that is not the phrase used, is 30 per cent. of the market. I believe that the American anti-trust legislation also lays down 30 per cent. The Commission has in this case laid down 50 per cent., which is contrary to our domestic legislation.
Secondly, and perhaps more important, the Continental Can decision determined

that a substantial part of the market could mean one domestic country—in other words, that Germany for the purpose of the Continental Can decision was itself a substantial part of the Common Market for the purpose of Article 86.

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Continental Can Company but the action came up only when the subsidiary of that company endeavoured to take over Thomassem and Drijver, which was a Dutch company. Therefore it is pertinent only to the West German subsidiary.

Mr. Davies: I am coming to that point. First it must be established that the company is in a dominant position in a particular market. Then, if it acquires only 5 per cent. more, it comes up against the Commission, and that is what happened in that case.
We might have a resident company in the United Kingdom—and there may not be many of them—which controls 50 per cent. of the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland market. That would be a substantial part of the Common Market within Article 86.

Mr. Skeet: What about steel?

Mr. Davies: I will come to that.
Then that company moves into a situation in which it acquires a company on the Continent which controls 2 per cent. of the continental market. If the Continental Can decision represents the thinking of the Commission, there is then a situation in which the United Kingdom company will come up against the Commission despite the fact that as far as the continental market is concerned its interest may be minute, because its interest in the whole market, its dominance, has reached the level which the Community says represents a monopoly situation. The Government should tell us how they view that on the basis of our own legislation, which says that 30 per cent. creates a monopoly situation.
This may not present very great difficulties to private companies, but I come to the point about the British Steel Corporation. As I understand it, Articles 85 and 86 are not confined to private companies. If one reads further in the Treaty of Rome to Article 90, that specifically applies Articles 85 and 86 to public undertakings. There are various


restrictions later, but basically those Articles are extended to public undertakings. I do not know what the exact meaning of "public undertakings" may be, but I think that the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board are public undertakings. What is to happen to them in the future?
If the British Steel Corporation, which presumably has more than 50 per cent. of the United Kingdom market, which is a substantial part of the Community for the purpose of Article 86, strays on to the Continent, and acquires a very small French company which has 1 per cent. of the French market, what is going to happen? We shall then be in a position which is basically similar to that of the Continental Can people, because the British Steel Corporation will be up against the Commission and it will be the Commission which will determine, according to its own investigations, whether the Corporation is acting in contravention of Article 86.
I ask the Government to tell us what their thinking is on these matters and whether, in their negotiations, they were given some kind of assurance or undertaking from the Commission that these so-called Articles on competition would not be applied to large public bodies such as the British Steel Corporation should they, for the purpose of their own business and to protect that business, stray on to the Continent in the way I have suggested.

Mr. Farr: What will be the position of a public undertaking such as British Railways which already has substantial assets in another applicant country, namely, the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Davies: I am not sure about railways. I suspect that, in the drafting of the Treaty of Rome, an attempt was made to exclude what could be called public utility corporations from the operation of this Article. However, the point is well made. The Government should tell us whether such a public utility organisation and enterprise is within Articles 85 and 86.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is making such a strong point that I should not like the reply to evade the substance of the point on a technicality. The technicality, as my hon. Friend will readily recall, is that steel would come under the

equivalent provision—I think Article 65—of the ECSC Treaty. In the substance, my hon. Friend's remarks are correct.

Mr. Davies: I am obliged. I do not understand this either. I should have thought that, if we accede to the Rome Treaties, the articles of all the treaties will apply. The mere fact that the British Steel Corporation comes within the ambit of the European Coal and Steel Community does not exclude the operation of the Articles of the Treaty of Rome.
My point was that, certainly for the future, and possibly as regards existing public undertakings, there is a considerable danger. How do the Government see the Community and the Commission's policy developing in relation to public undertakings?
Second, Regulation 17 is horrifying to an English common lawyer. It gives extraordinary powers to a Commission of bureaucrats not responsible to anybody in particular, except possibly, ultimately, to the Council of Ministers. Article 14 of the regulation makes clear the powers with which the Commission is endowed:

"(a) to examine the books and other business records;
(b) to take copies of or extracts from the books and business records;
(c) to ask for oral explanations on the spot;
(d) to enter any premises, land and means of transport of undertakings."

I should not seek to deny it if it were said that, to operate anti-trust legislation, it is necessary to give a body of some sort some powers. In the United States, which is the only country which has the experience of operating such legislation on a large scale, this is done by the Justice Department. I would not seek to extol the virtues of the Justice Department, but it is at least a political department in the sense that it is ultimately responsible to the Senate. Indeed, not long ago a United States Attorney-General in charge of anti-trust law had a difficult time on the floor of the Senate.
These powers are being given to a Commission which is not subject to that kind of control. The Commission not only makes up a case, as do the United States authorities, for presentation to a court, but it determines it. It acts not only as policeman in collating the evidence and examining witnesses but as judge as well.

Mr. Jay: It also acts as the legislature, because it makes the laws in the first place before it starts to apply them and then judges them.

Mr. Davies: Indeed. The Continental Can case has decided that a dominant position means 50 per cent. to 55 per cent. of the market and that Germany is a substantial part of the Common Market for this purpose. The Commission makes law, it acts as policeman, and it acts as judge in its own cause. This is contrary to some of our basic principles, but possibly is not contrary to continental principles based on the inquisitorial system of investigation.
6.45 p.m.
Conceding that some kind of body is needed, once that body has reached a decision, the matter should be taken to the Court of Justice. But not a bit of it. The Commission has the power to fine. Only when the company has refused to pay the fine can the Commission take the matter to the Court of Justice.
It is disturbing that major decisions affecting not only great companies but also millions of work people should lie ultimately in the hands of a Commission, however respectable and eminent its members might be. What do the Government think about this? Do they think that there should be some modification of the procedure? Are they happy with this situation? Do they intend to suggest to our future European partners that this is not in accord with some of our basic principles and that we should like to see some of the procedures changed.
Article 86 is supposed to stimulate competition. Neither of these articles will have that effect. Their effect will be, as has happened in the United States, that in major sectors of industry the market will be carved up by two or three companies. The whole of the Common Market area will be covered by two companies owning 50 per cent.; both will fall within Article 86; neither of the companies will be caught by the Commission. As I say, the market will be carved up between one or two large undertakings which are careful to ensure that they do not transgress the 50 per cent. rule.
The Government owe us an explanation as to what they think about the Community legislation in this respect, how

it interacts with domestic legislation, and what they foresee will be the effect on British industry of the implementation of these articles.

Mr. Skeet: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) for not having heard their speeches, as I was occupied elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) referred to the Continental Can case and to Article 86 of the Treaty. Many of the hon. Gentleman's anxieties are groundless. There have been only three interpretations under Article 86 so far—the Gema case in Western Germany, which concerned performing rights of musical composers, performers, authors and editors; the Continental Can Company, which covered metal containers; and Saint-Gobain, which concerned glass. Insufficient case law has been built up to justify any conclusive conclusion as to how British companies will be judged.
The point of the hon. Gentleman's argument was that Europe has one set of laws and that the United Kingdom has another, and that it is very much better here. In the Financial Times of 19th April, 1972, Mr. Graham Bannock, the research director for the Bolton Committee and author of "The Juggernauts", stated:
I estimate that in 1969, the top 100 industrial companies acounted for roughly half the pre-tax profits of all industrial and commercial companies in the U.K. In 1949, the share of the top companies was about 25 per cent. In other words, concentration has doubled over the past 20 years.
So concentration has doubled here over the past 20 years, even in the context of the legislation we have had operating. If there has been less concentration on the Continent of Europe, European monopolies legislation must have been a little more effective.
I want to refer to the Continental Can Company and study some of the details and background. In 1969 the turnover of the West German subsidiary was 193 million dollars, and the estimated share of the West German market in meat cans was between 70 and 80 per cent., in fish cans between 80 and 90 per cent. and in tin plate caps between 50 and 55 per cent. So it will be conceded that it had a dominant position in the West German market


The law came in when it attempted to buy into a Dutch company, Thomassem and Drijver (TDV), which is the largest metal packaging manufacturer in Benelux.
Certain factors must be taken into account. One has to consider whether the company has a dominant position in the relevant market. Certainly in packaging materials made out of tin or steel it had a dominant position. But there were competitors in the glass industry in which the company did not operate, and that factor has to be considered. Another factor is that the company achieved its eminence largely because of its technological developments. It also had the ability to raise funds on the international market which a number of other companies had not. Of course, other companies could form an international cartel in Europe and rival this one, but they could themselves be caught by Article 86.
Before we become too excited about Article 86, would it not be wise to allow the Commission first to develop a fairly considerable case law and find out how it will interpret the article?

Mr. John: It would be too late.

Mr. Skeet: If only three cases have been referred to the organs of the Community, we are not too late. We are only in the elementary stages where policy is being formulated and the terms of Article 86 are being interpreted.

Mr. John: We are trying to pass the European Communities Bill. Once it becomes an Act, it will be too late to effect an improvement to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Skeet: As hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said, we cannot put everything in a Statute. The Bill gives the general position, and it is liable to interpretation, as is case law. In the United Kingdom we legislate in Parliament, but the courts also legislate. Similarly, Article 86 will be interpreted and through the vast complex of case law there will be interpretations which will become extremely useful.
When we move to the exclusive agreements which are granted to distributors, a vast amount of complex case law has already been developed inside the Common Market.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has said that the courts in this

country also legislate, but does he not accept—and this is common ground—that when the courts legislate Parliament overrides them and says "We mean A to be A and not B."? When we pass this Bill we shall have no such power left in the House of Commons.

Mr. Skeet: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We shall be on the Council of Ministers and able to say what we do not like. That is the body which will make legislative provision, and we shall be able to lay down to the Council of Ministers precisely what we want. I look forward to the day when we shall have a European Parliament. The hon. Gentleman himself may be there to put forward the United Kingdom claims. We are looking for quality, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to live up to our expectations.
There are one or two points which I should like to ask the Minister. In the exclusive dealings which are granted we may find ourselves in difficulty with patents. Does an English patent grant the exclusiveness it purports to maintain in a stated area once we are in the Common Market? Secondly, can patent rights be legitimately used to restrict intra-EEC trade in products covered by patents in all EEC countries? The third point, which is linked with that, is: will the efficacy of international property rights pass with the enlargement of the Community so far as the United Kingdom is concerned?
When exclusive arrangements are granted there is a proprietory right within a defined area. We in the United Kingdom have one conception, and the case law in Europe is developing the other way. One commentator has said:
…the Court's decision was based on Article 36 of the Rome Treaty, which stipulates that trade restrictions which are justified to protect industrial and commercial property rights cannot be used as a means of 'arbitrary discrimination or disguised restraint on trade between member States'. The Court reasoned that it would run counter to the very aim of forging national markets into an integrated economic bloc if companies were permitted to split up the Common Market through the artificial use of industrial property rights.
That is quite distinct from our view of patents in the United Kingdom.
On the other hand, we have the views of Dr. Groapner on the law of restrictive practices and the EEC given in St.


Andrews on 26th March. There had been a case before the organs of the Common Market—the Parke Davis and Company case, where the exclusiveness of a patent was maintained. However, it was indicated that there were certain problems. Dr. Groapner came to this conclusion:
Whereas it was generally assumed that the owner of a patent was free to grant an exclusive licence for the exploitation of the patent because such grant remained within the scope of the patent right, the Commission seems to be inclined to consider it as a violation of Article 85 if the patent owner grants an exclusive licence only to one enterprise in one separate territory because such a restriction might prevent the patent owner from entering into patent licence contracts with any other enterprise. It may be asked whether this interpretation will not ultimately lead to the end of the grant of exclusive licences generally.
From our angle, bearing in mind that the new patent office will be in Munich and not in London and that there may be a vast qualification of the law of patents, exclusivity may go. I think I am entitled to ask the Minister what his view is likely to be on that.
So far as the EEC legislation is concerned, there seems to be an area of parallel jurisdiction in respect of national and Community cartels. I refer specifically to the dyestuffs and quinine cases. Clause 10 will not help to resolve the conflict. In procedural matters the member States may apply both the national and the Community law. When it comes to the substantive law where the settled facts may in a particular case disclose a quasi-criminal offence, can the proceedings be instituted in member States as well as in the Community, and to what extent is the national law applied if it happens to conflict with the Community law? It may be that the dominance of the Community law will be such as to overrule all local considerations, but what will be the rôle of the criminal law in the United Kingdom in this connection?
I refer again to Dr. Groapner:
…it nevertheless affirmed the lawfulness of the institution of proceedings in Germany because the violation of both German and Community cartel law could not be dealt with by one court only as the German courts had no power to adjudicate on an infringement of Community law while the Commission and the European court were lacking jurisdiction in respect of offences against German law.

What has been clearly laid down here is parallel jurisdiction. It is assumed that if a fine is imposed by a domestic court it will be taken into account by the Community organ, and vice versa, but if the Community stated that a practice was valid, it would still be open to a State to declare it invalid according to its own law. I do not think for one moment that these two points will be doubted.
I want now to refer to one or two points which have been raised. Exclusive selling rights which have been granted to distributors take on various forms. One form is when the purchaser agrees to buy from one seller and to distribute within certain areas and the supplier agrees not to serve anyone else in that defined area. There have been considerable modifications of Community law and up to date about 30,000 notifications to the Commission.
The point has already been made that this is a judicial as well as a legislative body with all the difficulties that that entails. We in the United Kingdom have the advantage of having separated our judiciary from executive functions. This may well happen in the Community: we are in its early stages and are in a position to reform it. I suggest that hon. Members should wait and be patient. Let us enter Europe on 1st January, 1973, and then try to bring about the changes which we require.

Mr. Deakins: There will be changes.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair.]

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Skeet: Of course, there will be changes and this is why we are going in at an early stage to bring about these changes. What should be made clear with regard to exclusive dealing arrangements which have been negotiated is that British companies have nine months to make notifications to the Community from 1st January, 1973.
Agreement which do not affect Community interests significantly, those falling under the well known case of Riechermann v. A.E.G.-Elotherm, will be outside and will not be liable to notification. This applies to goods, say which are exported to Japan specifically for the Japanese market and which may be unsuitable if re-exported to the United


Kingdom or any of the Six countries. It is unlikely they will be taken up by any member State, and so it cannot be said that they would have an adverse effect on the market. The liberalising of exclusive dealing has gone on consistently for a number of years. Rightly, the Council has had regulations in 1962 and in 1965, and the Commission produced a regulation in 1967 in which numerous exceptions from notifications were made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) mentioned small firms. There was a notice concerning agreements, decisions and concerted remedies in the field of co-operation between enterprises, and a large block of small firms and medium-sized firms were freed from notification—namely, if the companies involved had an aggregate turnover not exceeding 15 million dollars per annum and if production did not account for more than 5 per cent. of the relevant market. These arrangements have been going on for some time, and most of the exclusive selling arrangements in the Common Market are outside the net unless they have a distinctive impact on the flow of trade between Community States.
I would instance the Grundig Consten case in which a trade mark was called into question. This involved a proprietary industrial right and related to the decision that the trade mark should not be used as a method of forcing a division of trade. The case involved the manufacture of tapes in Germany which were exported to a French subsidiary. They carried the trade mark Gint. Independently, a West German wholesaler secured certain of these goods from Grundig and exported them to UNEF in France, which started to sell them. It was claimed that the trade mark gave protection to the German company. It was held that this could not be the case because the proprietary industrial right was being used to interfere with intra-EEC marketing, and the case was held against the Grundig company.
I have come to the conclusion in regard to trade marks and the copyright law that the position in the United Kingdom may be a little different from that in the Common Market, but we have to recognise that since we are entering a Community we shall have to make certain sacrifices. It is a fairly early stage to

say what will happen, but it looks as if things may be moving in the right direction. There seems to be a reasonable policy in regard to exclusive agreements. The Commission seems to have adopted a reasonable policy in operating the articles, and this is of great concern to Clause 10 of the Bill. I have no doubt that, with the modification which will take place in the building up of case law, these matters will be carefully considered by those concerned.

Mr. Farr: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) will forgive me if I do not deal too closely with the matters with which he dealt in his remarks. He made a most interesting speech, but I wish chiefly to refer to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton).
I say at once to the Committee that I am in an unusual position because I think nothing at all of this Bill; I think the whole of the Bill is disastrous. But I felt that there was one chance that by harmonising our legislation completely with the Community in respect of the type of legislation about which we are talking we could have done a certain amount of good in this rather narrow field.
A tremendous amount of discussion is taking place in the industry about restrictive trade practices in terms of agriculture and horticulture. There is concern about the difficult position which the industry faces with regard to existing United Kingdom law. Here was an opportunity—one ray of sunshine in an otherwise gloomy Bill—in which we could have had full harmonisation to enable British producers, if and when we go into the Community, to compete fully with their Continental counterparts in marketing agricultural and horticultural produce.
The sort of legislation which is defective in this country is that which is enforced at the moment. Unfortunately, Clause 10 does not provide for full harmonisation of United Kingdom legislation in this respect. If it had done so, things would not have been so bad. But it does nothing in this respect, and this has made the situation very difficult indeed. If and when we go into the Community, agricultural and horticultural


producers will be faced with certain discriminatory factors which will not apply in other member countries.
I wish to remind the Committee of what was said last year by the three National Farmers Unions about the situation. They then said:
As far as agriculture is concerned the existing situation perpetuates the inherently weak bargaining position of the 200,000 small producers vis-à-vis a handful of large buyers or processors. The defences permitted under the Acts have little relevance. The cost of defence is prohibitive. Many harmless agreements cannot, therefore, be risked. Many agreements or recommendations clearly in line with Government policy cannot be made.
That was the view of the National Fanners Unions last year and is still their view today. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is seized of the position. It was an opportunity for the Government when introducing the Bill fully to rectify the position for the NFUs.
Efficient marketing has been held up for several years because of restrictive practices. In 1967 the then Prime Minister emphasised in the Common Market debate that restrictive trade practices were one of the areas in which there would need to be harmonisation of practice if the United Kingdom's bid for entry was to succeed. Unfortunately, full harmonisation has not taken place. It will not take place when this Bill reaches the Statute Book. Certain discriminatory powers will exist and will apply to marketing bodies in this country. It is for that reason that I feel that I cannot support this Clause.
As hon. Members know, I have opposed this Bill all along. However I oppose this Clause not because the Government have gone too full-heartedly into Europe but because in this instance they do not intend fully to harmonise our marketing laws and thus free agricultural marketing bodies from the restrictions which hamstring them now and which, if this Clause is enacted, will tend to hamstring them even more for many years ahead.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I am disappointed to see that the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) has left the Chamber, because he made some remarks which have become part of the mythology of this

Committee. What he said implied that we were going into a Europe where the Commission had made up its mind completely and for ever on everything that was likely to happen in the future. But, of course, that is not the case. When we get into Europe we shall be represented there, and we shall be able to help mould the future changes in the competition policy.
The hon. Member for Llanelly spoke about the anti-trust laws in America. If the hon. Gentleman feels as he seems to, he has misunderstood how those antitrust laws have grown up. They are about 70 years old. They are changing all the time, just as our own anti-monopoly laws change all the time. The reason is that we are, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, in the middle of a technological revolution. That is why the whole system is for ever changing.
I can claim some consistency on these matters. When I was the Member for Cleveland, I introduced on 6th February, 1962, a Private Member's Motion on competition. I am delighted to read that I said at that time:
…the Common Market Treaty—and I sincerely hope that we join the Common Market—has anti-trust law provisions built into it."—[Official Report, 16th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 1668.]
Being a consistent man, I am delighted to support this Clause and to oppose the Amendments. I hope that those right hon. and hon. Members who have tabled the Amendments will withdraw them.
It is even more interesting to see that in that same week the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) also had a debate on competition. He was then claiming that private monopolies were evil. When he comes to vote on this set of Amendments, I hope that he will find himself in the Lobby that I intend to enter, because he and I appear to espouse the same ethic.

Mr. Jay: On the contrary. I shall vote in favour of keeping our own monopolies and restrictive practices legislation and not having it interfered with by the Commission.

Mr. Proudfoot: I cannot accept that. There is no little difference in practice between the law in the EEC countries and our own law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) also intervened in the 1962 debate and quoted Article 85. He went on to say that each country could have anti-monopoly legislation. My hon. Friend was correct then, as he is today.
Even more interesting still, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary also got into the act in that debate. At that time, he was worried about private monopolies and also about what was to happen as we went into Europe. He talked about the growth of international cartels.
What was said in 1962 fits this present debate perfectly, and it is interesting to see almost the same cast present.
I want to take to task my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). Article 85 talks about price fixing. I remember that shortly after the debate to which I have referred I was pressing the Government to get rid of resale price maintenance. My right hon. Friend fought against the Government of the day, wanting to keep resale price maintenance. It was a form of restrictive practice that I hated. However. I see nothing offensive in Article 86. It helps towards one of my cherished ambitions, since I believe completely in competition.
Again I must remind the Committee that the competition policy is still being built up in Europe. I for one want to see Britain in there so that we can take part in creating better and ever-changing rules for competition. They do not stand still.
In the last nine years the Commission has banned only five cartel agreements. Again, the figure is misleading. Our own Monopolies Commission has built up a quantity of case law, and a number of agreements have been found to be restrictive. In Europe 36 agreements have been dissolved voluntarily, and another 589 have been modified to secure the approval of the Commission. I believe that that is the correct way for Europe to go. When one looks at the American experience and sees what anti-trust laws and competition laws have done to the economy there, one can only welcome this Clause and ask those who have tabled Amendments to it to withdraw them.

7.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): We

have had a very wide-ranging debate not only on restrictive trade practices and other aspects of this Clause but dealing with the problem of competition policy and competition generally within the Community. Therefore it is right to begin by trying to state how the Government see the general application of the Community's competition policy. Following that, I shall deal specifically with the Amendments and, in the course of that, deal with many of the individual points which have been raised during the debate. Then I shall try to answer as many as I can of the individual points which have not been covered in dealing with the Amendments.
The objective of the EEC policy on competition is to abolish restrictive trade practices and the abuse of dominant positions which are inconsistent with the establishment of the Common Market. The purpose is to ensure that tariff, fiscal and other public trade barriers which have been dismantled by the treaty are not replaced by private trade barriers and that markets are not insulated from competition along national boundaries. I think that that is a matter about which all right hon. and hon. Members will be in agreement, since it will benefit not only the United Kingdom but Europe generally.
The EEC provisions leave room, however, for the simultaneous operation of national rules on competition in so far as they affect internal domestic trade or trade with non-Community countries.
The British Government firmly believe in competition because it has the effect of increasing efficiency in industry and commerce to the benefit of consumers and of the nation as a whole. The United Kingdom has had legislation on this subject for a number of years. Generally, the direction of the European Community's approach on restrictive trading agreements is not out of line with our own. In recent years there has been a notable convergence of approach between United Kingdom legislation and policy and practices in the EEC in relation to beneficial types of restrictive agreements. The Community has adopted a non-doctrinaire approach towards restrictive agreements. Although agreements which prevent or restrict trade between member States are generally prohibited, they may


exempt agreements which improve production or distribution or promote progress. Surely there is nothing in that with which any hon. Member would want to disagree.
Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome prohibits much the same kind of agreement as those controlled in the United Kingdom, except that it relates only to agreements which are likely to have a perceptible effect upon trade between member States. Article 85 resembles Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, in that there is a presumption that collusive restrictions on competition should be forbidden except in exceptional cases. Although the criteria for exemption are different—I will deal with that later—there is no conflict of principle between the Restrictive Trade Practices Act and Article 85.
None the less, there could be an overlap in a few cases between the jurisdiction of the Community, on the one hand, and the Restrictive Practices Court, on the other. Therefore, Clause 10 provides the necessary measures to avoid this overlap.
The problem of overlap does not arise in our legislation on monopolies and mergers. This is of great importance as it touches on a number of points which have been raised. Action under that legislation is at ministerial discretion. There is nothing strange in that. The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) suggested that there was something very strange in that this matter should rely on having to see into a Minister's mind. But the Labour Government's Act dealing with monopolies and mergers reinforced this position by including a provision for references to be made by the Minister. None of that is altered. Indeed, his whole argument falls absolutely. Action under that legislation is as it was. I am pleased to confirm this, as a number of hon. Members suggested that we should be in a terrifying position because our monopoly legislation would be ruined by entry into the Common Market.
Some firms may need to modify or abandon certain practices to which Community rules apply. I should make it clear that they will not be at a disadvantage compared with firms elsewhere in the Community. Firms in member

States are complying with the rules and, although they may find competition keener as a result, there is no reason to believe that they have been harmed by them. British firms should not find it difficult to adapt their business arrangements to comply with these rules. That is what competition is about.
I reject the view put forward by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) that small firms would be dying to get together to have restrictive arrangements so that they could carve out the market. I do not believe that that is the view of the small firms. Nor do I believe that it is what the Committee would want us to encourage.

Mr. Fell: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not raising this matter when he mentioned it, but, frankly, I was speechless. The point occurred at the beginning of his speech. It seemed so categorical—if I have misunderstood my hon. Friend, I am sure he will correct me—and was to the effect that one of the aims of the EEC was to promote trade and to cut tariffs. I know my right hon. and learned Friend thinks it is. I know that perfectly well. However, it is the reverse of what will happen because, immediately we go in, we shall have tariffs round this island, as are round the Six, against all the world.

Mr. Emery: I always enjoy my hon. Friend's speeches. I have seldom known him speechless. His interjection proved it did not last long. The external tariffs which would be applicable would, on the whole, be lower than those that we have now in many areas. We must work towards a freeing of trade. This is what our arrangements in GATT and most of our trading policies have been directed towards. Therefore, this is nothing new. I am sorry that my categorical assertion should, for a short time, have left my hon. Friend without the power of voice.
The purpose of subsection (1) is to give the Registrar and the court a discretion to determine whether to proceed under the restrictive trade practices legislation regarding an agreement to which both that legislation and a provision of Community law apply and, in exercising that discretion, to take into account the purpose and effect of the Community provision.
Our legislation is concerned with the effects on the domestic market and public interest of a particular agreement. However, after accession it will be necessary, where an agreement is authorised or prohibited under or by virtue of a Community provision, to take into account that authorisation or prohibition for two reasons—first, to avoid decisions being reached under our legislation which conflict with any authorisation which has been granted under or by virtue of a Community provision; and, secondly, to obviate the need to bring proceedings under our legislation where the decision is likely to be to the same effect as an authorisation or prohibition granted in respect of the agreement in question under or by virtue of a Community provision.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay rose——

Mr. Emery: When I have finished this aspect, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I should think that hon. Members would want parties to an agreement, which the Registrar or the court decides not to deal with, to be saved the time and expense incurred in court proceedings where it has been considered by the Community and a decision has been taken.

Mr. Jay: To be quite clear, may I ask whether the Clause gives power to the Restrictive Practices Court to disregard a directly applicable Community provision? The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that it does not. All it will be doing will be determining whether such directly applicable provision is in force in the case in question.

Mr. Emery: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is wise enough to know that the answer may affect two parts of a Community decision. First, the Community decision can be made only on agreements restricting trade between member States. Where a decision has been made on intra-European Community trade, the decision on international European competition stands. Where a decision could be considered to be applicable internally in the United Kingdom, the Registrar decides whether it is necessary or contrary to the legislation of the United Kingdom. The provision leaves the control of international European competition with the Commission and the Registrar

is left, as is the case within the Community, to decide on internal restrictive practices legislation and the provisions within that legislation for British companies concerning trade within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jay: What would be the position if the Commission, on the one hand, and the Restrictive Practices Court, on the other, disagreed whether a provision was applicable?

Mr. Emery: I do not see how that arises. The Registrar is attempting to deal with restrictions on trade within this country. What the Commission is attempting to do is to control agreements restricting intra-European Community trade. It is not attempting to control the internal restrictive practices of any of the Community countries. It seems to me that the situation is quite clear, and that is why I come specifically to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton).

7.30 p.m.

[Sir MYER GALFERN in the Chair]

I know and accept immediately that the NFU has made representations for the amendment of the restrictive trade practices legislation as it applies to agriculture. The union's long and detailed memorandum is being considered most carefully by my Department in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture. The basis of the criticism is the existing legislation in the United Kingdom. There is no concern about the Community provisions for restrictive practices. The Registrar has a complete discretion not to institute proceedings, and it was the institution of proceedings about which my right hon. Friend was concerned. This provision allows the Registrar not to institute proceedings in respect of any agreements—including agreements between farmers—which are subject to Community provisions, whether or not EEC Regulation 26/62 applies.

Sir Robin Turton: What the NFU is arguing is that if we are in the Community and there is a CAP the whole system for agriculture and agricultural products should be applied directly to British agriculture and should not be left to the discretion of the RPC. That is the point.

Mr. Emery: I see that immediately, and I had hoped that I was giving the kind of answer which would help my right hon. Friend. What the NFU wants is an alteration of our internal legislation. This is not the responsibility of the Commission. If my right hon. Friend wants to make that change he can introduce a Private Member's Bill to do that, and he will be able to do that even when we are in the Community. I cannot see why there should be concern, because the point about which the NFU is concerned and worried concerns restrictive trade practices within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ridley: What my right hon. Friend is saying is that, as he understands it, the CAP will excuse these agreements from being put before the Registrar. My right hon. Friend wants to know whether in this instance Community law will override domestic law, and I think that it would be helpful if my hon. Friend were to clear that up.

Mr. Emery: The answer is that British internal law holds good. I am sorry if that does not please my hon. Friend. In this instance he would like Community law to apply. That is an unusual view for my hon. Friend to take, because I should have thought that he wanted British law to apply.
The second Amendment deals specifically with the dominant position. Under Article 85 of the Treaty and Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty—and I was asked not to avoid dealing with the latter—agreements which restrict or prevent trade between member States are prohibited and void, and this applies irrespective of whether a firm which is a party to an agreement has and abuses a dominant position. If Part I of the 1956 Act applies to the agreement, Clause 10 as now drafted provides that it will continue to apply notwithstanding the prohibition under Community provision.
Article 86 of the EEC Treaty prohibits the abuse of a dominant position within the Common Market which affects trade between member States. It does not declare agreements void, and it does not refer to agreements. Part I of the 1956 Act applies only where there are agreements between two or more firms, and not to the actions of a single firm. Monopoly situations in this country are dealt with under the monopolies legislation.
A number of important points have been raised during the debate. The right hon. Member for Stepney said that the problems relating to competition policy were being clarified by the Amendment, but that is not so. It is making clear that discretion can be exercised by the Registrar. What we are attempting to ensure, if I may use an Americanism, is that firms will not be put in a position of double jeopardy. When a decision has been taken by the Community court, the Registrar will be able to ensure that no action is taken a second time in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the British Government's right to intervene was being threatened. I deny that. Nor do I find that the position about monopoly legislation being left entirely in the hands of Ministers is any different from what it was before. The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government which, in the last Parlaiment, dealt with the monopolies legislation and retained the provision for references to be made by Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman made a big point about "understanding the ministerial mind", but that was the position before, and that is the position as it will be in relation to monopoly powers after the Bill has been passed.

Mr. Shore: There is one important difference. The discretion which used to lie with Ministers, and will continue to lie with them, about using the powers under the monopolies mergers legislation remains, but today, as distinct from in the past or in the future, the exercise of those powers will not be, as it were, in relation to the facts of the matter and general policy as announced in this House, but will be taken against the obligations which Ministers feel they have accepted under the Treaty of Accession and under the basic rules and regulations of the Common Market.

Mr. Emery: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this is a limitation on the discretion of Ministers.

Mr. Shore: No. I am saying that it is confusing.

Mr. Emery: I am not confused about it, and I do not think that the Government are, either. On the whole, the monopolies legislation is probably


stronger in this country than it is in certain member States of the Community. I am delighted that perhaps when we are in the Community we shall be able to strengthen the position there. I do not see any difficulties preventing British Ministers, from whichever party they come, from making the same kind of decision as has been made before, and with the same degree of clarity. I therefore find the position clear.
I hope that I have dealt with the dominant position issue. The situation under Article 37 of the EEC Treaty does not apply to any of the United Kingdom State trading enterprises. We do not have a State monopoly of the kind referred to and applying under that Article. Much has been said about the fact that the Industry Bill will expire in 1977. But it was made clear by the Government that that Bill was introduced to do a specific job, as other legislation has been introduced by previous Governments to do specific jobs, for a limited time. It was argued in that case that we needed a set period, and that period was set for just five years. No objection to the Industry Bill was raised by the Commission.
I was asked another question about ICL and whether the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development, concerning the computer industry and ICL, was made after consultation with the Commission. The Commission was not consulted about the assistance to ICL which was announced yesterday, but the Commission was advised about this when the announcement was made—as a matter of common courtesy, I suppose.
I turn to the very helpful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond). He has been known for many years as a defender of the smaller firms, but I underline his main point, that the CBI Small Firms Council had thought it right and proper that we should have exactly the sort of protection that could be given under the Clause and had raised no objection whatsoever.
Although the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West may think that it is strange, the answer to his first question is that there is nothing sinister in the position of the words "void" and

"authorised". This is purely a matter of drafting and the use of the words, and there is nothing sinister about the variation to which he refers. It is also important that in dealing with this matter of the obligation to register the agreements, discretionary powers on which were of some concern to the hon. Gentlemen, he should know that this is the reason for the Clause. This I have attempted to argue when dealing with a few of the other points made by the hon. Gentleman in the general presentation of the defence of the Clause—but we are getting on to a "Clause stand part" debate rather than discussing the Amendment.
If the Registrar agrees with a Commission decision either against or in favour of a specific restrictive practice which has been registered with him, he is given discretion not to bring proceedings. This avoids the situation of double jeopardy. We shall not have a position in which an agreement has been accepted by the Commission with which the Registrar is in agreement being referred to the court. I should have thought that this was what the hon. Gentleman would have wanted.

Mr. Deakins: I could not understand the Under-Secretary's first explanation. I was certainly not implying anything sinister in the words "void" or "expressly authorised". I was merely concerned about the words "or exemption". Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the meaning of those words relates to exemption by the Registrar or by the British court, and not to exemption by the Community in any way?

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Emery: The exemption is as far as the British court is concerned. But, at the same time, the hon. Gentleman will realise that exemptions from all restrictive practices can be given by the Commission and that the exemption, when it has been given by the Commission, can be taken from the discretionary point of view of the Registrar. It is important that the hon. Gentleman should understand that.

Mr. Jay: Do the words "authorisation or exemption" in line 2 on page 17 mean exemption by the Commission or by the Registrar?

Mr. Emery: In dealing with that, one has to go to the start of the sentence:
the Restrictive Practices Court may decline or postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 20 of the Act, or may (notwithstanding section 22(2)) exercise its jurisdiction under section 22, if and in so far as it appears to the court right so to do having regard to the operation of any such provision or to the purpose and effect of any authorisation or exemption granted in relation thereto.
I think that that is quite clear, is it not? [Laughter.] Let me clarify it a little more. This is a golden opportunity for anyone replying to read out something like that and tell the Committee how clear it is. However, I should have made it clear that it means exemption by the Commission.
I turn to other questions put to me about regulation No. 17 of 6th February, 1962. I was asked about Article 4, paragraph 2, and whether the three sub-paragraphs were alternatives or additions. They are alternatives. That may clarify that particular point.
The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) raised specifically the position of the Continental Can case, where the Commission ruled last year that Continental Can's acquisition of a Dutch competitor constituted an abuse of a dominant position. As early as 1966 the Commission, in a memorandum on the problem of concentration, expressed the opinion that an attempt to monopolise a market could be an abuse in the sense of Article 86. It refuses to limit Article 86 only to cases of market behaviour as any action by the occupant of a dominant position may come under Article 86. Structural changes of the market are not excluded—not to the merger as such being criticised but the elimination of actual or potential competition in merging with a competitor. This is something which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) understands only too well because it is the same sort of approach as we have had in our monopoly legislation regarding the elimination of competition within a market. Whilst I accept that there is a variation in the percentages accepted by the EEC on the degree of domination, I come back to the point I have already made, that we are stronger than the Community in this matter. With due co-operation within the Community, I would hope that we may be able in future to work

more towards the British attitude towards this. Obviously, the situation is that our monopoly legislation is that much stronger in obtaining competition. I believe that that is the way that it ought to be.

Mr. Denzil Davies: May I follow on my points about nationalised corporations which, as far as I read Article 90, would come within Article 86 and therefore within the Continental Can type of case? Can the hon. Gentleman deal with that point?

Mr. Emery: I can say that there are exact provisions in the ECSC to deal specifically with coal and steel. I know that has already been accepted, but I must put it on one side so that I am not seen to be misleading the Committee. The second point about State trading positions is that, while I cannot say there would never be a problem, at the moment we do not see any problem affecting the nationalised corporations as a result of the legislation.
I will now return to the main points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). He was concerned particularly with patent rights, industrial property rights and sole distributor agreements. If I can answer these questions perhaps he will forgive me for not answering other questions which he raised. On sole distributor agreements the Community may grant exemption from the ban on restrictive agreements either to individual agreements or to particular categories of agreements. In the past the Community has granted a block exemption to sole distributor agreements which it considered were not harmful to the Community's aims.
The exemption does not extend to agreements where the dealer is granted absolute territorial protection by the supplier. Firms may apply to the European Commission for individual exemptions, and they have to show that the dividing of the market into watertight compartments is beneficial overall.
On patent rights, the Treaty of Rome does not prevent the acquisition of industrial or commercial property rights. It provides, however, that the exercise of these rights shall not be used as a disguised restriction on trade between member States. That is entirely in harmony with the objective of removing barriers


to inter-State trade with a view to achieving a single integrated market. We have been invited to participate in further negotiations with the member States on a draft Community patent convention, and it was on this point that my hon. Friend asked me two questions. Under the proposed convention member States would be treated as a single country and the European patent for each of them would become a single Community patent effective throughout the Community territory. There are similar proposals for a Community trade mark. That is the aim of the draft Community patent convention, but it would be foolish of me to suggest that we have come to a finalisation of these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Har-borough (Mr. Farr) said that it would have been better for the Bill to have been a harmonisation of the legislation within the Community, when he might have been able to support the Clause. I only say to him that this is what we are trying to do throughout the whole of the Bill and in this Clause in particular. We are seeking to ensure that there can be a harmonisation of the position of restrictive practices and that we do not

bring extra cost and extra work or extra concern where decisions have already been made and where discretion can and should be exercised by our own Registrar on restrictive agreements. I therefore believe that the Amendments as they have been moved would not work towards those specific objects, and I must ask my hon. Friends to resist both of the Amendments should they be voted upon.

Sir Robin Turton: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the care he has taken in replying to the debate. What he has said about agriculture will not please the farmers in this country, and I hope the Government will have second thoughts about the matter and, if necessary, bring in a Bill to put the position right. But at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot), and to save time for more important debates later, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 222, Noes 210.

Division No. 261.]
AYES
[7.55 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Costain, A. P.
Gurden, Harold


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Critchley, Julian
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crouch, David
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Astor, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Awdry, Daniel
Dean, Paul
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Batsford, Brian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hastings, Stephen


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Havers, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Drayson, G. B.
Hawkins, Paul


Benyon, W.
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hayhoe, Barney


Biggs-Davison, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Higgins, Terence L.


Blaker, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hiley, Joseph


Boscawen, Robert
Emery, Peter
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eyre, Reginald
Holland, Philip


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Holt, Miss Mary


Bray, Ronald
Fidler, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hornby, Richard


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fortescue, Tim
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fowler, Norman
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fox, Marcus
Iremonger, T. L.


Carlisle, Mark
Fry, Peter
James, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gardner, Edward
Jessel, Toby


Cary, Sir Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Chapman, Sydney
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Jopling, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Goodhart, Philip
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gower, Raymond
Kershaw, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kimball, Marcus


Cockeram, Eric
Gray, Hamish
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Cooke, Robert
Green, Alan
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Coombs, Derek
Grieve, Percy
Kinsey, J. R.


Cooper, A. E.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Kirk, Peter


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Grylls, Michael
Kitson, Timothy


Cormack, Patrick
Gummer, Selwyn
Knight, Mrs. Jill




Lamont, Norman
Osborn, John
Stainton, Keith


Lane, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stokes, John


Le Merchant, Spencer
Pardoe, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Parkinson, Cecil
Tapseil, Peter


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Peel, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Loveridge, John
Percival, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Luce, R. N.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Tebbit, Norman


McCrindle, R. A.
Pounder, Rafton
Temple, John M.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mather, Carol
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Maude, Angus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Trew, Peter


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Redmond, Robert
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mawby, Ray
Reeds, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Waddington, David


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Miscampbell, Norman
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wiggin, Jerry


Money, Ernle
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wilkinson, John


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rost, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Monro, Hector
Scott, Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


More, Jasper
Sharples, Richard
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Morrison, Charles
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Worsley, Marcus


Mudd, David
Simeons, Charles
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George
Younger, Hn. George


Neave, Airey
Skeet, T. H. H.



Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Soref, Harold
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Normanton, Tom
Speed, Keith
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Nott, John
Spence, John



Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sproat, Iain





NOES


Allen, Scholefield
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Heffer, Eric S.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dempsey, James
Hooson, Emlyn


Ashley, Jack
Doig, Peter
Horam, John


Ashton, Joe
Dormand, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Atkinson, Norman
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Baxter, William
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunn, James A.
Janner, Greville


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dunnett, Jack
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Biffen, John
Edelman, Maurice
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
John, Brynmor


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Booth, Albert
Ellis, Tom
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
English, Michael
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Fred
Judd, Frank


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Ewing, Henry
Kaufman, Gerald


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Faulds, Andrew
Kelley, Richard


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fell, Anthony
Kerr, Russell


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fisher,Mrs.Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Kilfedder, James


Cant, R. B.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kinnock, Neil


Carmichael, Neil
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkestone)
Lambie, David


Carter,Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamborn, Harry


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Foley, Maurice
Lamond, James


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Foot, Michael
Latham, Arthur


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cohen, Stanley
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Coleman, Donald
Golding, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Gourlay, Harry
Lipton, Marcus


Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lomas, Kenneth


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Loughlin, Charles


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Davidson, Arthur
Hamling, William
McBride, Neil


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hardy, Peter
McCartney, Hugh


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph
McElhone, Frank


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Deakins, Eric
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McMaster, Stanley







McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Palmer, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Maginnis, John E.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Pavitt, Laurie
Strang, Gavin


Marquand, David
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Marsden, F.
Pendry, Tom
Swain, Thomas


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Pentland, Norman
Taverne, Dick


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Perry, Ernest G.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Torney, Tom


Mendelson, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Robin


Mikardo, Ian
Prescott, John
Urwin, T. W.


Millan, Bruce
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Varley, Eric G.


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Milne, Edward
Probert, Arthur
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wallace, George


Moate, Roger
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Watkins, David


Molloy, William
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Weitzman, David


Molyneaux, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rose, Paul B.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Whitlock, William


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Murray, Ronald King
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Oakes, Gordon
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Woof, Robert


O'Malley, Brian
Silverman, Julius



Orbach, Maurice
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orme, Stanley
Small, William
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Oswald, Thomas
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Padley, Walter
Spearing, Nigel



Paget, R. T.
Spriggs, Leslie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

COMMUNITY OFFENCES

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I beg to move Amendment No. 408, in page 18, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment we are to take Amendment No. 455, in line 13, leave out from 'it' to end of line 18 and insert 'in the United Kingdom'.

Mr. Benn: Though it comes late in the day, this is one of the most important debates on the Bill. It is curious that the points I want to raise arise out of a Clause dealing with Community offences, but this is the only occasion we have had during the whole of our consideration of the Bill to debate Euratom. Our accession to Euratom, as part of the proposed accession to the Community Treaties, is a major policy act.
Subsection (2) is, on the face of it, totally innocuous. Everybody knows that in atomic energy there are sensitive and valuable technologies, and so the Government have provided in the Clause that those who have to give information must tell the truth—that is the extension of

the Perjury Act—and that when the information is conveyed it must be protected. If that is the basis on which the Government hope to resist the Amendments and carry the Clause, it is time the Committee looked more deeply at what is involved.
I should like quickly to take hon. Members through some of the implications of the Euratom Treaty. Article 5 innocuously makes it clear that to co-ordinate and complement
research undertaken in Member States, the Commission shall, either by a specific request addressed to a recipient and conveyed to the Government concerned, or by a general published request, call upon Member States, persons or undertakings to communicate to it their programmes relating to the research which it specifies in the request.
I turn now to Article 16, because we are dealing with the passage of information. It says:
As soon as an application for a patent or a utility model relating to a specifically nuclear subject is filed with a Member State, that State shall ask the applicant to agree that the contents of the application be communicated to the Commission forthwith.
I remind hon. Members that we are dealing with nuclear technology. Article 17 provides that, if there is any difficulty about the right of the Commission to license this technology,
Failing amicable agreement, non-exclusive licences may be granted either by arbitration or under compulsory powers in accordance with Articles 18 to 23".


Here we have a treaty to provide for co-ordination of research, a requirement to submit patents to the Community and a right of the Commission to license by compulsory powers the nuclear technology that has been developed.
Article 19 states:
Where, failing amicable agreement, the Commission intends to secure the granting of licences in one of the cases provided for in Article 17, it shall give notice of its intention to the proprietor of the patent…
Article 21 states:
If it refuses to grant the licence… or … no information is forthcoming … the Commission shall have two months in which to bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
If there is argument about the payment, then it is subjected to arbitration. Article 24 states:
Information which the Community acquires as a result of carrying out its research programme, and the disclosure of which is liable to harm the defence interests of one or more Member States, shall be subject to a security system …
Here we are begining to move into the central area of nuclear security. Then, rather charmingly, it goes on to say that if damage is done as a result of patents classified for defence reasons being improperly used,
…the Community shall make good the damage suffered by the party concerned.
We are dealing with the most sensitive central nuclear technology which we have acquired in this country. The provisions of the Treaty are absolutely specific as to how this is to be handled. But the matter has never been debated by the House or the Committee throughout the whole episode of this legislation.

The Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Technology, was a member of the Labour Government who made the application. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Labour Government sought no amendment whatever to the Euratom Treaty and only a 12-months' initial period?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman had better listen to what I am about to say. I will draw attention to the magnitude of the changes involved and to the scandal that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is denying Parliament and the

public an opportunity of knowing the magnitude of the changes which have been made. As to the way the matter should be handled, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows my view, which I have never concealed. Nothing the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said in his intervention derogates from my explanation of the Treaty. Had I been the Minister at the time, and had the matter been debated under the circumstances he visualises, it would certainly have been presented under different arrangements to the House.
Article 25 provides that there shall be an exclusive right in Euratom to get ores from outside the Community. Article 65 provides that the geographic origin of supplies of ores for Euratom will be determined by the agency to be set up. Article 67 provides that the prices should be specified. Article 81 provides the power to send inspectors to inspect nuclear plants. Article 96 abolishes all restrictions on the nationality of those involved in nuclear work to promote the free movement of nationals of any Member State. Article 5 of Regulation 3 provides that, for the purpose of security, there shall be a screening system under which every member of the Community will have the right to join in the screening of anyone who is allowed under the Euratom Treaty to deal with sensitive material. Article 1 of Regulation 4 provides that all investment is to be reported to Euratom. On page 37 of the White Book, it is provided that a monthly return is to be made of the movement of ores and provisions for safety regulations.

8.15 p.m.

All that provides virtually total supervision of our nuclear effort under the Treaty, yet the Treaty has never been debated in the House. The charge which the right hon. and learned Gentleman faces is that at no time did he provide the information I have just given to the House, which is culled from the published documents. The House and the country have never known what is involved in joining Euratom. That is the whole basis of the criticism of the guillotine procedure. The Treaty of Accession, having been signed without being published, is part and parcel of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy of getting the country into the Community without proper discussion or consent.

Mr. Rippon: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that ever since the Labour Government made their application and published their White Paper in 1967, it has been perfectly clear that both Governments accepted the Euratom Treaty without amendment. There has been an opportunity for it to be debated every time we have debated the question of applying to join the Community. There have been days and days of opportunity.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made his position much worse. Even if what he says is true, he is saying that if two Ministers agree about something there is no need for Parliament to debate the matter. If two Governments agree, even if there is agreement between the right hon. Gentlemen and I, as successive Ministers of Technology, does that mean it is not necessary to have a debate?

Mr. Rippon: Two Governments agreed.

Mr. Benn: At no stage have the Government presented to the House the significance of Euratom in such a way as to allow Parliament and the country to understand its significance. [Interruption.] The Treaty of Accession was signed before it was published. The criticism we make is that the basis upon which the Government believe they have the best chance of getting the country into the Common Market is to conceal the implications. This is our central complaint of their handling of the matter.
I invite the House to see what the right hon. and learned Gentleman found it necessary to say upon Euratom in the White Paper of July, 1971. Paragraph 160 said that Euratom:
…is concerned with the peaceful uses of atomic energy, promotes nuclear research and ensures the dissemination of technical information.
Paragraph 161 says:
We have agreed to accept this Treaty and the rules made under it without any transitional period…
Paragraph 163 states:
Euratom operates a system of control and inspection of civil nuclear installations…we have agreed to accept the Euratom control system.
At this moment we do not know the extent, since we have never been told by

the Government, to which this question will involve our military installations.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I should just like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take account, as anyone making an exposition of this subject must take account, of the fact that the sentences he has just read from the 1971 White Paper are three times as long as those contained in the 1967 White Paper published by his Government. In a statement to Western European Union, Lord George-Brown said:
In the case of Euratom we seek nothing more than this twelve-month initial period.
As the right hon. Gentleman has stated, with fervour but without force in complaining of the absence of debate even years ago, when the Labour Government were making that proposition, his right hon. Friend Lord George-Brown said:
The processes of argument and debate in Britain which led to our decision were long and arduous. The issues have been carefully weighed in full realisation of what is at stake…We accept all three Treaties…and will implement them.
The Treaty now is exactly the same as it was then.

Mr. Benn: The hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend reveal by every intervention their attitude to the parliamentary process. It is an attitude of utter contempt. It is true that when we considered the application in 1967, the Labour Government saw no obstacle in Euratom and conveyed that view in their White Paper. What the Solicitor-General is saying, and what I know to be in his mind, is that if a Minister is satisfied that one does not have to debate the matter in Parliament, then one does not have to allow any Amendment, and one does not have to present the facts to the public. If that is an indication of how the British Ministers will behave when they are in the Community, this place will be utterly shut out from any effective control over executive power.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. I am asserting that if parliamentary government means anything, if the sovereignty and reality of the House of Commons are meant to mean anything, one can surely take account of the fact to some extent that two successive Governments charged


with responsibility for the affairs of the country—and including, still, Her Majesty's Opposition—remain willing in principle to accept this Treaty amongst the three and have had days upon days of debate. Successive Governments have had the application repeatedly endorsed by successive Houses of Commons, as Lord George-Brown pointed out in his statement.

Mr. Benn: If that is the hon. and learned Gentleman's conception of parliamentary government, no wonder he is prepared to scrap it for the sort of system now working in the Community. If he believes that the public support Parliament on the basis that, if a Government and an ex-Government or future Government, at ministerial and ex-ministerial level, agree, then there is no need to present to the House of Commons the facts and to give it the chance to debate them, he misunderstands the whole history of parliamentary government, which is that we are here to represent the public interest when the Government of the day propose an alternative course of action.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford) rose——

Mr. Benn: I have a lot to say yet, and I have had a number of interventions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could come in later.

Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: Very well.

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has given way because I was about to remind him that he has been complaining about the two Front Benches getting together, yet he was at first refusing to give way to a back bencher. In both this Parliament and the last, every Thursday back benchers have been able to ask the Leader of the House for debates on various subjects. In addition, Motions are frequently put down on the Order Paper asking for debates. Were Motions about the Euratom Treaty ever put on the Order Paper? Were representations made to the Leader of the House that we should debate Euratom in either this Parliament or the last?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny through the legislative process. This BUI, which provides for our adherence to Euratom, provides not a single opportunity for any debate on Euratom, save on a Clause which deals with the Official Secrets Act. The complaint we make is that Parliament is being invited to discuss Euratom as a by-product of an examination of security, of screening, of the extension of the Perjury Act and of other devices which allow us to discuss it but make it exceptionally hard, as we are under a guillotine, to come to grips with the major changes of policy to which I now wish to turn if the Committee will allow me to do so.

Mr. Rippon: I think the right hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that these propositions were put forward first by the Labour Government and then by this Government to Parliament. Their White Papers were debated. The Labour Government's White Paper was approved by a massive majority and ours was approved by a considerable majority. We know that certain people have changed their views for reasons that we also appreciate.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention should be studied by the political scientists. He is now saying that if there is a debate on the principle of something, there is no need for debate on the detail. We have never debated Euratom at all at any stage. Nor would the Government have allowed a debate on Euratom to come up now if they had not had to provide in the Bill a short Clause dealing with security. That is the criticism we make.
It may be that as Minister of Technology I examined this matter and saw no obstacle, but if a Minister sees no obstacle, no intractable difficulty, in a Treaty to which his country might adhere, that does not absolve him or his successor from having the matter properly and fully debated in Parliament. That is the lesson which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is the most arrogant Minister I have ever heard in the House of Commons, might well learn from the debates we have had.
Let us consider the implications of joining Euratom. However much the right hon. and learned Gentleman may dissent from my view, these are major


issues about which the public should be informed. The first point is, that unlike any of the six members of the present Community, Britain has over 25 years concentrated her efforts on nuclear research. We did our wartime work with the Americans. We set up the Atomic Energy Authority in 1955; in 1956 came the first settled programme of nuclear research; the first generation of reactors produced in this country—Magnox reactors—have generated more electricity by nuclear means than the rest of the world, including the United States, put together; we have advanced gas-cooled reactors now going into service; we have at Dounreay the first fast breeder reactor in the world coming forward.
This British investment over 25 years has to be set against a far smaller investment by the Six. The two are to be put together without the Government candidly describing the implications of what is being done. If one wants to get an account of how much has been spent on nuclear research since the war, probably the best thing to do is to look at the published figures. I have access to other figures but I will not give them to the Committee. Mr. Duncan Burn in 1967 estimated that Britain had spent £950 million on nuclear research, and in an article in the Sunday Times last December, Mr. K. Richardson estimated that we had spent by then £1,500 million on nuclear research. This is the dowry we have built up by our efforts and skill since 1945.
It is true that the French, for military purposes, and the Germans now, for civil purposes, are spending a great deal of money on nuclear research, but the point is that in the case of atomic energy what this country will take into Euratom is worth infinitely more than it can get out of it by the association. This is something which the public is entitled to know and we shall find some vague confirmation of it when the right hon. and learned Gentleman replies.
The second point about nuclear energy and atomic secrets is that a secret in atomic energy is not very complicated. The definition of a nuclear secret is that if one knows something can be done, then one knows the only secret worth knowing because one then concentrates one's effort upon it. If one knows that something cannot be done, then one does

not bother spending resources on it. I recall being told by a distinguished French nuclear scientist, when I met him for one of the talks we had regularly on this matter, that the greatest leakage of nuclear information ever to come out of the United States was not through the spy net worth but through the report, published by the Americans after the war, giving an account of which projects they had attempted and in which they had succeeded and in which they had not. If one has the mass transfer, provided by the Euratom Treaty, of nuclear information, then of course one is conveying by that fact the most important nuclear secrets.
8.30 p.m.
The centrifuge project is no longer secret. We agreed to join with the Dutch and Germans. I was responsible for that project. The only secret about that project was the knowledge that it could be done. As Minister I found myself in an astonishing position. The contents of top security papers one saw were being published as speculation in the New Scientist at the same time, the difference was that we knew it could be done, while the New Scientist was describing a process and did not know whether it could be done. When we decided to go in with the Dutch and Germans and said, "We know from our experience that the centrifuge works" that was the only secret. One could have written it in capitals on the back of a postage stamp. Those secrets were disseminated by the transfer of information under the Euratom Treaty.
A provision in one of the articles to which I have referred said there must be a report on all investment projects. Let me return to the centrifuge project because that bears directly on what happened then. When this country decided that it would move to the centrifuge from the gas diffusion process, all now published, the information was conveyed when we joined the Dutch and the Germans. We decided at the same time that it would not be necessary to expand the Capenhurst Works, which were constructed on the gas diffusion principle. The knowledge that we were not expanding Capenhurst—had that been known through an investment report—would have conveyed to anybody else that we must have discovered another way of


doing it. That secret would have become generally available.
In the nuclear field it is not the passing of blue-prints, such as occurs in pre-war spy stories, which is vital. The secret is the knowledge that a country with a capability can succeed in moving in a certain area. When the United States said at the end of the war, "We have tried this and we did not find our way forward", that told the Russians not to bother and saved them thousands of rubles and man-hours of skilled work, because they got that information from an unclassified United States report.
Let no one in Parliament try to brush this off by an exchange of 1967 quotations. We are dealing—as the right hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone else, because he had this responsibility—with the central area in which this country has put its money and skilled manpower ever since the war-time arrangement with the United States.
I come to the impact on our relations with the United States. The war-time collaboration with the Americans was the basis upon which the special relationship rested. When the McMahon Act was published and passed by Congress at the end of the war, it provided the first limitation on what had been a free exchange under the wartime agreements between American and British atomic scientists.
The links between the Atomic Energy Commission in the United States and this country have always been close. Since the McMahon Act they have been subject to the very close scrutiny and careful watching of the joint congressional committee. In all the contacts that the British have ever had—I was involved in one dealing with the centrifuge process—it has been the relationship, the umbilical cord, that has linked us to the United States that has been the most important consideration of national policy.
I recall one debate in which the Foreign Secretary was speaking, before Christmas. One of his hon. Friends interrupted and asked, "What about the amendment of the McMahon Act?" The Foreign Secretary said that this was a matter of great importance because in this Clause lies the heart of the special

relationship. That has great political importance.
It was the re-assertion of the special relationship in the Nassau Agreement in 1962—when Mr. Macmillan decided to take the Polaris from the United States—that produced the first French veto. Mr. Macmillan had been to Colombeyles Deux Eglises for one of those grand reunions. There were the old men standing together waiting for the application to be accepted by the French. Then he went to Nassau and received the Polaris from the young President Kennedy without telling the French. Shortly afterwards President de Gaulle vetoed the application.
It was at that moment that the present Prime Minister, whose work had been frustrated because of the nuclear relationship with America, decided that when it came to his turn to re-negotiate he would ensure that that special relationship never intervened to produce a third French veto. That is the importance which must be brought out if Parliament and the country are to be truthfully informed about what is passing through Parliament this evening.

Mr. Rippon: What the right hon. Gentleman has to say is of interest and importance. Is the right hon. Gentleman advising the Committee—as he did in 1967 and in 1970—that we ought to accept and join the Euratom Treaty without amendment?

Mr. Benn: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to develop my speech to its conclusion he will hear what I have to say. The fact that he is waiting for what I will say at the end is flattering. But that does not allow him to avoid confronting my arguments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is attempting to get a simple Clause through Parliament phrased in such a way as to conceal from the public the magnitude of the change involved.
I come to another major political question and that is the extent to which what is now contemplated marries up with what we believe to be a private arrangement between the Prime Minister and M. Pompidou that there should be some joint military arrangements in an area which admittedly is not covered by the Euratom Treaty. It is impossible to know exactly,


because these matters are concealed behind a very tight security screen, but my own view is that one of the aspects of the deal that withdrew and cancelled the French veto was an agreement by the Prime Minister that this should be the beginning of some entente cordiale, some special relationship with some nuclear overtones. I attach great importance to the transfer of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Ministry of Defence. One of the issues we had to consider when we looked at the future of Aldermaston was whether it was right, as we believed, as I strongly believed, that nuclear weapons should be under a civil Minister, as they are in America, under the Atomic Energy Commission, rather than being transferred to a Defence Ministry where they become part and parcel of a defence policy, without reference to their political implications. We shall return to that when the much-promised legislation comes before the House in the new Session.
I come to the military side. Euratom is a civil treaty, but we are told that inspectors can present themselves with their credentials and inspect our nuclear establishments. I have asked the Minister, and I expect a reply, whether there is to be inspection of British military establishments. Is there to be inspection of the French nuclear establishment at Pier-relatte? We do not know. The Committee is entitled to know whether this is the case, because the Minister knows very well that one of the things that held up the non-proliferation treaty for a long time was the extent to which other members of the International Atomic Authority were ready to accept Euratom safeguards and inspectors as a substitute for the inspections that would take place under the IAEA.
Another aspect of the problem has to do with the sources of supply of ore. I have drawn attention to Articles 25 and 65 and I now bring to the attention of the Committee an aspect of this which has never been adequately discussed. It is that in the choice of the sources of supply of uranium it is possible to move into a highly political area. Let me take the case, which has been very much discussed outside the House, of the Atomic Energy Authority and the RTZ Rossing mine—bringing uranium from

Namibia or South-West Africa. I will not go into the background because much of it has been published but I am glad to have the opportunity to say something about this.
The proposal was that RTZ would supply the Atomic Energy Authority with uranium, first from Canada, with a capacity to switch to South Africa. It was switched to Rossing in Namibia and—I do not in any way wish to escape my responsibilities in these matters—there is no doubt that in the information made available the authorities were less than forthcoming. I would go further and say that the decision to acquire it from Namibia should not have been taken. I say this as someone who was at the time the responsible Minister. The point is that the political control of what appear to be technical decisions is at the heart of the atomic energy business.
If uranium is obtained from one country as against another, there will be different safeguarding provisions. If it is obtained from Namibia instead of from Canada, there are enormous political implications vis-à-vis the United Nations and the possibility of enforcing United Nations resolutions. If a Minister, dealing with the Atomic Energy Authority, as I was, with an international company under British control, RTZ, as I was, can enter into a relationship of that kind, which should not have happened, how much more could this happen if Euratom controlled the source of supply?
I do not believe that the Committee should pass over this matter of the control of nuclear energy, the supply of ores and the distribution of information, without trying to reassert what is the most important point that there should always be, at all times, political control of what may otherwise appear to be purely technical decisions. If the world loses control of its destiny it will be more because politicians were not strong enough, or not sufficiently well informed to control scientists than because of almost any other consideration. What I have just said is self-criticism, and I say that lest the committee should misunderstand me, but I believe that the task would have been wholly impossible if one had been dealing with Euratom, which apparently authorised the Germans to get their uranium from the Rossing


mine in Namibia without any sort of political discussion at all.
Now I come to the question of price control because it is one thing to say that one wants a free market in order to prevent distortion of the market when one is talking about ordinary products, but when a country has poured £1,500 million, to use the Sunday Times figure, into nuclear research, is it not to be allowed to fix prices so as to get the benefit of its own research? In the case of the Concorde, the Government have so fixed the price as to allow us to be sure that the aircraft does not run foul of international market difficulties, and this is done by a levy on sales adjusted to bring the money back as the aircraft goes into service.
In the case of nuclear energy also this has been done. Nobody has asked the CEGB to pay back in royalties from the use of nuclear power stations sums sufficient to pay the cost of nuclear research. That is something the miners have always complained about. They say "You subsidise nuclear energy by research but you will not subsidise the miners although we are more economic until that research pays off". If the Euratom powers give the Commission the power to control the price of uranium, then of course this capacity to adjust the royalty rate so as to feed one's technology into one's industry will be under some sort of supervision.
Now I come to the point which confirms what I have been saying about the British nuclear capacity being so much better than that of any other member of the Six. This is shown in some splendid words in the Government's own White Paper. Paragraph 165 of the July, 1971, White Paper says:
It has also been agreed that we shall pay no entry fee in return for our access to the capital assets and scientific information held by the Community.
"We shall pay no entry fee": why this sudden generosity when they were so tough on their own resources, so tough on CAP? We shall pay no entrance fee because what we are conveying under the Euratom arrangement is worth infinitely more than we shall be getting out of it. That is why in this field nobody had the effrontery to say that we should pay.
I should like to quote the New Scientist for 22nd July last year:
An incredible story was told recently by British negotiators returning from the Brussels Common Market headquarters: Britain had been asked by the Six actually to pay an entrance fee for joining Euratom! Scientists and engineers on both sides of the Channel acquainted with the atomic scene in Europe knew that this could only be suggested by politicians who had failed to contact their scientific advisers.
Of course the Government had been ready to pay to get in, but the reality is that our investment in nuclear know-how is infinitely greater than that of any of our partners among the Six.

Mr. Emery: The right hon. Gentleman is not one to mislead the Committee, so I think it would be fair if he would read to the end of paragraph 165, because there we make it quite clear that we have agreed to deposit knowledge of equivalent value with Euratom immediately after our accession. This does not mean to say that there is imbalance in the deal, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, and I am certain he would not want to give that impression.

Mr. Benn: I am flattered by the hon. Gentleman's anticipating my speech. I am coming on to the second part of paragraph 165.
I am simply saying that to say we shall pay no entrance fee, to give the impression that we are getting something for nothing, is an absolute joke in the circles in which the position is known.
Now we come to the second part of paragraph 165. In recognition of the fact that we shall have access to the complete stock of nuclear knowledge, we have agreed to deposit knowledge of equivalent value with Euratom immediately after accession. What knowledge? In what form? How does it differ from the definition of scientific secrets that I gave earlier, that if one says something can be done one may have conveyed by that simple piece of information the result of hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of research? The idea of a trade of a limited amount to be valued conveys in a single sentence something that lies at the very heart of the question: are we getting value out of the arrangements under the Euratom Treaty?

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

8.45 p.m.

I am slightly surprised that the Under-secretary is to reply to the debate, because the issues raised by the Clause are very large. However, perhaps on this issue he can tell us what the valuation is of what we are getting and what we are giving. What arbitration procedure is there? How does the conveying of this information differ from the conveying of information that will be going by the ordinary provisions of the treaty? Indeed, will the hon. Gentleman put a price on the balance? After all, we are talking in the CAP of hundreds of millions of pounds. In nuclear research we are talking of thousands of millions of pounds, possibly.

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that by what he has put into a 40-word paragraph he can evade the responsibility for telling the country about what the Government are doing with an inheritance of nuclear energy knowledge built up over 25 years, he must be mad. This is the great, central theme; this is the greatest discovery of knowledge which has been made, perhaps for all time, but certainly since the war. We have been given none of the essential information. We are told only that under the treaty everything is to be conveyed to Euratom. No doubt the Under-Secretary will deal with this.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman keeps directing me towards the question whether Euratom is worth while. In July, 1971, Nature said this:
One of the least dazzling parts of the British Government's policy declaration last week in favour of British membership of the European Economic Community is a passage dealing with what was formerly known as the European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom for short.
I ask the Committee to listen to this, because the writer is not opposed to Britain's joining the Common Market:
The case for a British link with the EEC is by now…self-evident.
So the case the writer is about to make in his next sentence is worth listening to:
…yet the case for membership of Euratom is so meagre as to be non-existent.
This is the reality.

In reply, the Under-Secretary will have to tell us what we get in return. In

our negotiations we should have insisted upon proper safeguards for protecting the British basic national interest. The Euratom Treaty would not of itself have been a barrier to British entry, with the proper safeguards for British know-how built into the negotiations. However, no attempt was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to negotiate safeguards. No reference was made. All that he did was to shift from a 12-month transitional period to a minimum period, or to a six-month period. No attempt was made by him to protect the great heritage he acquired.

Is it necessary to have Euratom for there to be co-operation? I was the rotating chairman with the Commission in the continuing committee discussing nuclear policy between Euratom and the United Kingdom. Our half of that bargain was at least as good as theirs, if not better. We had the Dragon project at Winfrith, which was a joint project involving Euratom and the United Kingdom Energy Authority. I launched the centrifuge with the Dutch and the Germans. Nobody could accuse me of being opposed to nuclear exchanges with the Europeans on a proper basis.

In terms of the bargain here, the charge against the Government is that in the one area where we were overwhelmingly strong the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no effort to negotiate and safeguard our interests. He tried to cover this by Government legislation which would deny Parliament the right to debate it, except by the side wind of a security Clause and then said that, because five years ago we had not seen a barrier in principle to signing the Euratom Treaty, this alliance between the Front Benches should properly have excluded parliamentary supervision. This adhesion to Euratom in the form in which the Government have negotiated—I hardly like to call the right hon. and learned Gentleman a negotiator; he did not attempt to negotiate—is a major technical, commercial, political and even military shift which has been done entirely without the fact being published and has been brought to Parliament through an offences Clause.

I suppose that the Solicitor-General is here because his answer to every problem is the law. It is his job. Whatever it is, industrial relations, or anything else, it


is all law. His safeguard is that it will be on a statutory oath that these secrets are to be kept. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have to learn about national loyalty as he is now learning about trade union loyalty. Loyalty can not be enforced by legislation. What is involved here is an attempt by a single subsection in an Act of Parliament to provide that people who have contributed to the nation's nuclear know-how should confer it on the other members of the Community and in this way just to pass it through the courts——

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman may feel that he is entitled to give me a lecture on national loyalty, but will he come back to the point on which I first intervened? Has he yet identified a single factor in all the facts he has rehearsed so interestingly that differs by one jot or one tittle from those that underlay the position when he was in Government, at a time when, without any qualification of the kind he is now arguing, he and his Government commended the acceptance of the Euratom Treaty without variation? I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he lectures anyone else on loyalty, to concentrate on his own personal and political credibility.

Mr. Benn: Every time the Solicitor-General intervenes, what he says is this. Because a previous Government of which I was a member saw no insuperable barrier in the Euratom Treaty, properly negotiated, with proper safeguards, that allows him and his right hon. and learned Friend to negotiate an arrangement which denies parliamentary supervision over what is to happen. The hon. and learned Gentleman often refers to the 1967 White Paper—and I was a member of the Cabinet at the time—but he may or may not know that when we discussed this matter we always talked about the impending required legislation, and it was known as the "thousand Clause. Bill".
Never did we contemplate at any time, nor did we ever indicate in any public statement, that we should be prepared to take this country into the Common Market in such a way as to deny Parliament the right to supervise and discuss what happened. The Government, with no negotiation, introduced a Bill containing this subsection which, if I had not

strained the rules of order to discuss it under a security provision, would never have been discussed at all.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand that, I see with a fresh blaze of light why he does not understand industrial relations either. He thinks that all he has to do is to get an arrangement with another Minister, force the Bill through the House and the problem is solved.
I come now to the question of entry and the attitude to Euratom. If the Government are seeking to make the changes I have described, or any of them, they cannot do it without the full-hearted consent of the British public. If they want to break the special relationship, they must first say that they are doing it and then carry the people with them, or else they should not do it. If the Government want to transfer the accumulated stockpile of nuclear know-how, they must say that is what they are doing and carry the British public with them. If the Government want to change the highly sensitive basis of national loyalty—for it is upon that that national security rests, not upon the Official Secrets Act, they must say so. If they want to change the situation, there must be the full-hearted consent of the British people.
It is the total failure by the Government to be candid, truthful and honest in the presentation of these changes that leads me to recommend to the Committee that, as a way of indicating our total dissatisfaction with the way in which this matter has been handled, we should support this Amendment.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Many giggles are passing across the faces of the occupants of the Treasury Front Bench, and the years 1967 and 1970 are never absent from their interventions in our Committee proceedings. However limited my knowledge of nuclear physics or even of the details of the finer points of law in the Bill, I stand before this Committee in a white sheet as one who did not vote for entry in 1967 and who wrecked his own political career by not voting for entry. I also opposed entry in 1970 under the previous Government. Nothing that has happened since has done anything other than reinforce the conviction I tried to express both in this Chamber and upstairs in 1967.
When I come to this part of the Bill there are certain other issues which are at the back of my mind which, if I were to pursue them to their logical conclusion, would lead me far beyond the bounds of order.
The first proposition advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is an absolutely cast-iron proposition. In fact, it is even better; it is made of the finest quality steel. Once one has the necessary equation—and many of us are familiar with the famous Einstein equation—once Rutherford had split the atom, from then on no kind of nuclear advancement could be kept secret. The Hollywood "B" movie notion that the Russians became a nuclear power because certain spies passed on secrets is fit only for the television screens at midnight in bleak periods indeed. Once one has unlocked the secrets of the atom, the world's scientific community knows precisely what one is doing.
It is a well known fact that the Central Intelligence Agency wants the Russians to know certain things that the United States is doing and that it has a special section to plant information in American technical journals with the idea that that information will be picked up by the Russians. Anybody who believes that any worthwhile information is passed out in envelopes concealed behind bricks in obscure walls ought to be writing scripts for the television screens and not be participating in such debates as these.
Of one thing we must be clear, and that is that the whole of subsection (2) is a load of "nonsense on stilts", to quote Jeremy Bentham's famous phrase. There can be no classification of information, no real attempt to keep certain information secret. What can be kept secret, and is being kept secret, is the precise military application of some of this nuclear knowledge which is being provided from the research stations at present under the control of Euratom.
9 p.m.
I have no intention of going through reams of statistics. However, when one looks at the figures it is quite evident that most of what the French take from Euratom is not devoted to making the atom an agent of peaceful progress. It is devoted to building up this ridiculous,

fantastically useless, and strategically dangerous military institution, the "force de frappe", which confronts world pointing in all directions like an angry but totally impotent hedgehog.
As a consequence certain facts are concealed behind the figures. I am very anxious to quote from those sources which are favourable to entry into the Common Market. When we look at the figures, we find that Euratom and all its works, to use a motoring metaphor, are nothing more than the oldest Tin Lizzie on the road. It has produced nothing of any significance. It is a very old jalopy, and it is that for a reason that was given in a book published not very long ago and edited by a former Member of this House who was then and is now an enthusiastic advocate of British entry into the Common Market. I refer to Mr. Eric Moonman. In spite of being an advocate of entry into the Common Market, he remains my friend, as he was in 1967. He was then my hon. Friend, and very soon I hope he will be again when the British people are consulted on the Common Market and on a wide range of other issues.
This is what a contributor to this volume entitled "Science and Technology in Europe" had to say. I might say that the book created quite a stir when it first appeared. Discussing the situation in most of these collective scientific organisations in Europe, he said:
To paraphrase Alexander King"—
an American writer—
the situation is much the same as if, in the United States, each state of the Union viewed the totality of American scientific effort in different terms and participated in it for reasons which would benefit only itself. In international competition European scientific organisations faced a double handicap; they are a composite of diverse efforts and divergent aspirations.
They are, in fact, a Tin Lizzie. That quotation does not come from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East, and still less does it come from my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who is following my reasoning with his usual close attention. It comes from Jean-Jacques Salomon, who has a great deal to do with scientific endeavours in France. He ought to know. He does know. I have quoted him because he knows.
When we look at the amounts of GNP devoted to research in the United Kingdom compared with the countries which are already in Euratom we find the following, and here the contributor is talking about the French:
The proportion is now about 1½ per cent. of GNP, the same as Germany but less than Bitain's 2·3 per cent. What is more, the part taken up by military expenditure is even higher than it is in the UK, thanks to de Gaulle's 'Force de Frappe' "—
which reinforces an earlier argument that I presented.
So the need for purposeful stimulation of civil research in France justifies the centralised French system, much as the need for better exploitation, rather than research as such, is the justification for the division of powers in the UK.
Incidentally that is written by an Englishman, Mr. Rex Winsbury. In other words, in this Tin Lizzie which is Euratom we are now asked to put the finest Rolls-Royce engine ever made by the motor division of the Rolls-Royce Company. Why are we doing it? What is to happen when we do it? One cannot talk in this context without mentioning the famous or notorious Godkin lectures.
One thing I admire about the French is that they serve rigidly and ruthlessly the national interests of France. They know quite well what they are doing. They are taking us along on this expensive ride for purposes of which this Committee knows nothing and of which the British people know even less. If the full significance of the existence of, first, the French nuclear force and, secondly, an Anglo-French nuclear force were realised in this country, even among those who support the use of the nuclear deterrent, almost every bench in this Chamber, whether occupied by hon. Members or not, would be crying out in protest.
I will not repeat the speech I made in an earlier debate. But to inject into the present balance of terror situation other centres of nuclear command is the most dangerous thing we can do; and when those command powers are used by Frenchmen, who are almost neurotic with the concept of national glory and aggrandisement, to a degree which would astonish the ghost of the late Emperor Napoleon I, who was a comparative internationalist compared with President Pompidou, this gives cause for alarm.
Whatever is said from the Government benches, from the documentation—I have no desire to detain the Committee for a moment longer than necessary, but I have a file six inches thick on Euratom alone—there is not the slightest doubt that the French will dive into Euratom when it is equipped with the British Rolls-Royce engine and utilise it for purely French military purposes. That is wrong.
I do not attack the French for that. Unlike Nelson, I do not fear God and hate the French. I have a certain respect for the French. I always had considerable respect for the late President de Gaulle. When these debates began I said that had the late President de Gaulle survived into 1972 we would not have had to go through any of this blasted nonsense at all. But I admire the French for pursuing at all costs, in every possible way, whatever the dangers to the rest of the world, their own national interests. I admire them, but I am determined to try to stop them.
One can respect an enemy. Had I been fighting at Waterloo as my ancestors did—incidentally, on both sides—I should have respected that part of my ancestry which fought under the Duke, who certainly respected Napoleon Bonaparte and those who fought, I hope, in the Old Guard, and had considerable respect for the Duke of Wellington.
So one can object to a line of policy and yet have a certain respect for the Government or the nation pursuing that policy. However, I cannot find the slightest atom of respect for what this Government are now doing. I have always said that the Tories were rather better at accountancy than we were. They could read balance-sheets. They could come in and look at the work that we had done in government, check the balance sheets, check the advantages against the disadvantages, check the cost-benefit systems, check the costs against the benefits and the benefits against the cost. However, since they have been in government they seem to have lost that talent. I regret it, because their only function in political life is to read balance sheets and to correct some of the more idealistic notions which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I present to the House of Commons. But now they have lost the art. Who but a total idiot would put a Rolls-Royce engine—I keep going


on with this metaphor—into a Tin Lizzie and imagine that he had made some kind of magnificent bargain? It is total and absolute nonsense but, as I said earlier, it raises wider issues, because in this Clause we are concerned with the passage of nuclear secrets—[Interruption.] If the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) would like to intervene, or sing a song, or do something to add to the gaiety of our proceedings, I should be happy to give way.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was saying that the Model T Ford was one of the best cars ever made.

Mr. Fletcher: But one would not use it in 1972 if it were made in 1924. They age a little in body and in other respects, and one does not put a Rolls-Royce engine in a 50-year-old car.
I said earlier that this debate raises wider issues. It raises precisely those issues which were brought out in all their stark reality in the case of the late Robert Oppenheimer—the issue of the rôle of the scientist in the world today, the issue of the attitude of the scientist towards the political authority that he serves, and the greater issue of the responsibility of the scientist to the human race as such.
When any scientist works for any Government which tries to keep certain aspects of research secret, in the end that scientist is confronted, as Robert Oppenheimer was, with a conflict of conscience, and it produced a partial mental breakdown in that brilliant man. It also produced a most abominable witch hunt, and Oppenheimer said some valuable words about the American system of freedom and its value to scientific research. There is a certain connection between an open society, the quality of the scientific research in which that society indulges and the products of that scientific research. Robert Oppenheimer had been arguing for freedom and arguing for the free interchange of views between scientists of all nations as was the customary practice, and he said that there was a time when science was growing up into its present state when the language of scientists was a lingua franca when every scientist in every part of the world felt himself part of a scientific community. It was not

until the Nazis came to power in Germany that the term "German Science" or "National Science" was even thought of. Oppenheimer continues:
Thus there is a kind of pre-established harmony between scientific research and the democratic ideology of the country which produced the Declaration of Rights. Research prospers all the more for being surrounded by a climate of freedom which is natural to it, and, reciprocally, the spirit which animates science reinforces the structures of a free society.
The Clause if interpreted in the French manner, as inevitably it will be, is a direct defiance of that magnificent utterance about the connection between scientific research and freedom by the late Dr. Robert Oppenheimer.
He had something to say also over the BBC even before he was arraigned before the court and before he had to defend, not what he had done, but what certain common, cheap informers claimed he had done, and that was to have, at a certain time in his life, Communist friends. It is very difficult in the modern world not to have Communist friends. There is not one Member of the House who would not accept an invitation tonight to have dinner with Pablo Picasso, make no mistake about it. Over the BBC—he was talking with great regret of the analysis of the scientific sphere by political authority—he talked of
the increasingly expert destruction of man's spirit by the powers of police, more wicked if not more awful than the ravages of nature's own hand.
9.15 p.m.
Professor Oppenheimer knew more about the ravages of Nature's own hand, as he was one of the fathers of the hydrogen bomb, than any man living at that time. Yet we run the danger that if the Bill is passed in this form, if the subsection of the Clause remains part of the Bill, if we go into Euratom in this way, if the French use Euratom in the French way, the rigidities of the French police system will be applied to every scientist working in Euratom the moment the French demand military know-how that we have acquired at such enormous cost.
This raises wider issues that would take me far beyond the bounds of order, Sir Robert, and would strain your patience even more than I have done already. Yet


this is what we are doing. I suggest that we are committing not a double error but a dual crime if we allow the Clause to pass. First, we are concluding an absolutely ridiculous bargain. We are giving away a lot in return for very little. We are putting a Rolls-Royce engine into a Tin Lizzie. But secondly, and much more ominously, we are placing in the hands of the most militantly nationalist nation in Europe, in spite of the Common Market and its so-called idealism, into the hands of a nation which did not hesitate to try to wreck the whole NATO defence system in its own interest, into the hands of French generals and admirals, an instrument which can frustrate the very development of science itself.
Is that what we want to do? Is it part of the nuts and bolts of the Bill not to expand science but to throttle it, not to encourage scientists but to gag them? Is that what we want to do? Is that the free, glorious international Europe that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken to me about so often? Is this the extension of human freedom that we were told about when the vote was taken on 28th October? Is this the enlargement of our sovereignty that we have been told about time and again?
It is nothing of the kind. It is the biggest sell-out since Munich, and I have not the slightest hesitation in describing it as such. The Euratom business goes right to the heart of what is happening in this Chamber and right to the heart of what is being done to this country by means of this Bill. We are giving weapons to people who are unfit to have them. I make no mistake about using that strong language. My only regret is that I am not addressing the French Chamber of Deputies in French, as I had the privilege of addressing members of the European Parliament only a couple of days ago in German. I should like to say this to the French face to face. I do not trust them. I do not trust them with the powers that would be given to them with this kind of expansion of Euratom.
Ending on a rather low commercial note, I deeply regret that the Conservative Party, which used to be able to read balance sheets, has lost that capacity, it

seems, for ever. It has become so obsessed with entry into Europe at all costs, so obsessed with the notion of steamrollering the Bill through the Committee and through Parliament, that it does not give a damn about the possible consequences and does not give a damn about the costs. There is a word for that kind of conduct, but I am not allowed to use it because it is an unparliamentary expression. But, although I am deeply sorry that I cannot use it, I assure right hon. and hon. Members on the Government benches that I can think it, and I hope that it is revealed in my face as I speak.

Mr. Emery: I answer immediately one point made by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher), because it is important to put his speech in relationship to the Euratom Treaty. In many ways the hon. Gentleman was misleading the Committee in the belief that Euratom is concerned with military secrets. It must be pointed out from the word go, so that people understand this whether they are listening to the debate or reading about it, that the Euratom Treaty has nothing to do with the military aspects. The concept that we are placing weapons in the hands of the French is a complete and utter fiction in the mind of the hon. Member for Ilkeston and has nothing whatever to do with the Treaty.

Mr. Benn: Mr. Benn rose——

Mr. Emery: May I make my speech in my own way?

Mr. Benn: The Under-Secretary is perfectly right to make the point that Euratom does not deal with military matters. But the treaty deals with the classification of military secrets and the Clause that he is now recommending to the House would permit people to be punished for transmitting defence secrets which they had acquired accidentally or in any other way from the Euratom Corporation.

Mr. Emery: I am trying to do nothing more than put the record straight. What the right hon. Gentleman has just said was not the basis of the speech of the hon. Member for Ilkeston and therefore it is important to make it clear that the military type of information with which his speech was concerned is not a part of the Euratom Treaty.

Mr. Fletcher: May I point out that the Under-Secretary is therefore arguing not with me but with M. Jean-Jacques Salomon who heads the Science Policy Division of the Directorate for Scientific Affairs of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? He says precisely what I have said.

Mr. Emery: I do not mind whom I have to correct as long as I can put the facts right. I will correct anyone, and the hon. Member knows me well enough to know that that is the way I would approach the matter.
May I say in a slightly calmer and less emotional way than the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) that I found his speech, in view of the fact that he was responsible at some time for the whole aspect of atomic matters when he was a Minister, disreputable, demagogic and even, at times, dishonest. I shall elaborate on that. We on the Government side, and particularly the Solicitor-General, do not need lessons in our national duties. That type of remark by the right hon. Gentleman, during discussion of a serious matter, does the House of Commons and the right hon. Gentleman as chairman of his party no credit whatsoever. [Hon. Members: "Answer the point."] One always knows when one gets comments like that from the Opposition that one's observations are hitting home.
The other thing I find somewhat intriguing is that this debate was mounted by the right hon. Gentleman as one of the most important debates in the whole of the Bill. We can assess the validity of that statement by the plethora of speeches we have had supporting the points he made. It does not seem to me that his statement can be substantiated. No doubt he can make another speech after I have replied if that is what he wants. But before he rose to speak there had been only one speech.
It is therefore proper and necessary for the Government to reinforce without contradiction from the Opposition that when the Labour Government were considering entry into Europe they absolutely accepted the Euratom Treaty as it was. Their White Paper makes it clear that it could have been accepted within 12 months. That was made clear by the Cabinet and the Government of which

the right hon. Gentleman, who has made this flagrant attack, was a Member. Therefore, we must get a proper balance to the debate.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me, an interested observer of the exchanges, the following point: It seems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said that the exchange of information would be one of the great gifts from this country, and the Government Front Bench did not disagree. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what we have received in exchange in the negotiations? What have we got on the common agricultural policy or any other matter in exchange for what it is obviously accepted has been given through the Euratom agreement?

Mr. Emery: First, may I correct the hon. Gentleman. He is presuming from my presence on the Front Bench and the fact that I did not immediately jump up to deny the statement, or that in the first three or four minutes of my speech I have not got round to dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's argument on that issue, that we believe that it is a deal in which we are giving everything away and receiving nothing in return. If the hon. Gentleman listens to me he will learn that that is not my argument. That is not my approach, nor do I think it would be a right or proper approach in the overall consideration of the Clause.
I would also point out that the right hon. Gentleman made great play of saying over and over again that this was the first time we could have discussed Euratom. He is an old enough hand at political in-fighting to know that that is not true. At any time in the debate on the White Paper, at anytime on Second Reading, the whole of the Treaty structure of Euratom could have been raised by the Opposition, and never did they do so.

Mr. Michael Foot: I know the hon. Gentleman was not present at the beginning of our debates in Committee, and I do not complain on that score. But does not he understand that one of the Opposition's main objections to the whole way in which the Bill is being presented to Parliament is that we have never had the opportunity to discuses


individual items of the Treaty of Accession? If he had been present at the beginning of the Committee debates, he would have known that that was one of our main complaints, and what we protested about. If the whole matter had been properly presented to Parliament, we should have had the debate for which my right hon. Friend argued on Euratom and all the other items under the Treaty of Accession. That is what has been denied to hon. Members.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman is trying to fog the issue. He knows that I am on a very good point, because the Opposition have not been demanding debates on Euratom. The subject has never been raised. I understand the Opposition's objections. They would have liked to debate every single item ad infinitum and to stop the Bill ever getting through. One or two Labour hon. Members behind the hon. Gentleman are nodding agreement. I understand that argument, but no Government will accept it, neither a Government with which the hon. Gentleman would be associated nor the Government with which I am associated.

Mr. Foot: Whatever may be the approach on the question of the time it takes to complete discussion on a Bill of this nature, we have always claimed—and nothing that was done by any Labour Government contradicts this—that the Treaty of Accession, including individual items in the Treaty, should have been debated before we were ever presented with a Bill of this character. That we can discuss the kind of matter before us only on the kind of Amendment my right hon. Friend moved is entirely the responsibility of the Government, because of the way in which they have framed the Bill.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman must come off it; he cannot get away with that. He knows that the Opposition have never asked to debate Euratom. Who will deny that? [Interruption.]—It is being suggested by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman that it is terrifying that we have never debated the subject. We have never had, until this moment, any such indication—[Hon. Members: "Of course not."] May I make my speech in my own way?—[Hon. Members: "Hurry up."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not be continually interrupted. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will give way whenever he has the opportunity.

Mr. Emery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Except on one occasion, when I was speaking against the clock, I have always given way.

Mr. Benn: Mr. Benn rose——

Mr. Emery: Allow me to finish at least one sentence.
The reaction of hon. Gentlemen opposite is proof of the effect of what I am saying. If they had wished they could have made clear any objection to the Euratom treaty, which was not known when they were in office, which they did not indicate when they were in government, which was never indicated when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister, which has not been indicated in any speech since then.
None of those points can be denied. I do not believe that the outside world will consider that there is the degree of importance attached to this matter which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Benn: Would the hon. Gentleman, who is very courteous, tell the Committee this: on what occasion, other than during general debates which Parliament can always hold, have the Government put before the House of Commons the issue concerning our adherence to Euratom in such a way as to permit the Euratom question to be voted upon by Parliament? That is the point I was making and which was so studiously avoided.

Mr. Emery: The right hon. Gentleman knows that when he made his speech he did not use the words "voting upon"; he talked about a debate. Let us not switch the argument in the middle of this debate. It is a clever wiggle out; it will not wash. The hon. Gentleman knows that in July, in October and on Third Reading, the three treaties were discussed—not just the Treaty of Rome. That was made clear to the House.
This is a suitable opportunity for the Government to make some remarks about our accession to the European Atomic Energy Community. This was set up by a separate treaty at the same time as the


European Economic Community. It concerns the peaceful uses of atomic energy. It promotes nuclear research and ensures the dissemination of technical information.
No one would claim that Euratom's history is an immense success story. When it was set up the future development of nuclear energy looked rather different from that viewed from our 1972 viewpoint. With hindsight it is clear that the desire of individual members to follow their own paths in exploiting the nuclear potential made it unlikely that any Community venture in this field would be a massive success. Even so, the criticism, and some might even say partial failure, which is acknowledged by many in the Community, has been more related to the lack of industrial collaboration than to any scientific inertia.
The position now reached is that all our partners in the enlarged Community accept, as do we, that to stand a chance in the world markets especially, with expensive technological activities such as nuclear energy, we must rationalise our efforts and co-ordinate major developments where we can. We have already shown our willingness to do this.
The right hon. Gentleman used the centrifuge project as part of his argument. I would like to correct him on one of the things he said about that. He suggested that the only secret about the project was the knowledge that it would work. The detailed technology pool in CENTAC maintains a classification factor on the centrifuge project even now. The information on this is still classified, and it would be wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to make people believe that the question of whether or not it works was the only important secret. It is because of this that there is the need to protect such secrets throughout the enlarged Community through Clause 11(2), and I hope that for that reason alone the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
The question of our membership of the European Atomic Energy Authority is not really a problem in Amendment No. 408. What the Opposition are attempting to suggest is that, having accepted the Euratom Treaty, we should not defend our secrets within the Community. I cannot believe that a sensible Opposition, having to accept our accession

to the Euratom Treaty, would not wish to ensure that our secrets were protected. The previous Administration acknowledged in the White Paper "Information in the Public Interest" published in 1969 that certain types of official material required the protection of the criminal sanctions provided by the Official Secrets Act. There is no doubt, in the context of the terms of the Euratom Treaty, that Euratom classified information falls within that category.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that our objection is to the provisions of this subsection of this Clause of this Bill, and will he accept that, from the way the Bill is framed, if a secret of this kind is disclosed by a British subject in any part of the Community, or by a foreign subject in Britain, he can be prosecuted in any of the countries of the Community? It would follow from that that, far from citizens of this country being protected by the presumption of innocence which they presently enjoy, they would be liable to be prosecuted for the disclosure of what is a secret in this country in the court of a foreign country which does not operate under the presumption of innocence as we know it.

Mr. Emery: The position under foreign law at present would ensure that a person who has disclosed a secret of that country would be able to be prosecuted in that country. This Clause does not affect prosecutions in any way other than in this country.

Mr. Deakins: May I put one minor matter to the hon. Gentleman which I am sure he will be able to clear up quickly? If an Englishman gives away information in England which the French under the French security rules would regard as classified information but which would not be classified information under British security rules, would that Englishman in England be guilty of an offence under this Clause? The way the Clause is drafted that would appear to be the case?

Mr. Emery: I thought for a moment that it was going to be a story about an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman.
The position is quite clear. It is not that he could be prosecuted for disclosing a French secret; it is a Euratom secret, because part of the information


would be British within the Euratom concept.
The right hon. Gentleman put certain questions to me on inspection. Again, I was rather surprised at his questions because the position is no different now from what it was when he was advising his Government to accept the Treaty. He professes to be concerned about the background to nuclear proliferation. Inspections of the kind performed by Euratom are inspections of civil installations and they are to do exactly the opposite to that which he is suggesting. They are inspections not for military secrets but to ensure that materials and technology are not developed for military use. Surely he understood this when he was recommending to the country that the Euratom Treaty could be accepted by his Government and by the country as a whole.
The hon. Member for Ilkeston has left, but he argued that the Community might not maintain that Euratom was a success. He went on to argue that it is a Tin Lizzie—I think those were his words—and then he said that it was of vital importance because it could be exploited by the Community. He cannot have it both ways. He condemned Euratom for not being worth while and the next moment he said that he was terrified of Euratom because it meant that atomic military secrets would be presented to the French.
I think it important that the matter of the exchange of knowledge should be put straight. The heads under which information will be exchanged were agreed in detail in the course of the negotiations and are, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, scheduled in the Protocol published with the Treaty of Accession. The precise balance of information exchanged is a matter for mutual agreement between the Community, on the one hand, and the individual countries, on the other. I should have thought that it would be clear to the right hon. Gentleman that as a country with a large national programme we shall be in a better position to exploit the information we obtain from Euratom. This is one of the points that has been entirely neglected in this debate. An attempt has been made to suggest that we are the only people who are giving, that we shall in no way be

beneficiaries. I must insist that in any serious and sensible consideration of this Bill and of this matter of the Euratom Treaty this statement is taken fully into account.
I have been on my feet for somewhat longer than I would normally expect but I wanted to try to deal with the debate in the way I considered right and proper and to make it quite clear that the Amendments suggested stand no chance of doing away with Euratom. They deal entirely with security matters, which I believe the Opposition would want to ensure can be maintained once we have signed the Euratom Treaty. I cannot believe that it would be a sensible Opposition which would suggest we should go into Euratom and then not have the safeguards of the national security of our secrets and the Euratom secrets which they, when they were the Government, would have insisted should be safeguarded.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I am very interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman made, that because we had a lead in nuclear technology we were likely to get more out of pooling than those countries which had not got as great a lead as ourselves. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what he means?

Mr. Emery: Exactly what I said.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for attempting to deal with some of the points which I made. Having heard him speak, I repeat what I said at the beginning, that this is one of the most important debates. The reason it has been poorly attended was contained in his closing remarks when he said there is no possibility that by voting upon the Amendment we can keep out of Euratom. That is what we are complaining about. He has provided no provision for the Committee to decide at any stage whether it wishes to be a party to this arrangement.
I shall take up briefly some of the points the hon. Gentleman made, because before we pass into the Lobby on this matter it is as well to get clear the issues that lie between us. The hon. Gentleman in winding up the debate made it clear—he was right to do so, and I intervened in his support—when he said that this was not a military exchange programme as such. My hon. Friend the


Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) might have given generally the impression that this was a defence exchange. For that reason the hon. Gentleman was right to intervene. But at the same time the hon. Gentleman must surely know that because of the complexity of nuclear technology one cannot easily divide the technologies into civil and military categories.

Mr. Emery: Mr. Emery rose——

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish, I shall certainly give way.
If we take, for example, the centrifuge project to which we both referred, the real sensitivity of the centrifuge technology was that it was known that the centrifuge was cheaper than the gas diffusion plant. That was 90 per cent. of the secret. But contained within centrifuge technology are certain components to which the hon. Gentleman referred which are important. They are important for military reasons. If other countries knew how to make effective centrifuges there would be a real risk of the spread of nuclear weapons.
My hon. Friend referred to civil exchange. This has been fully debated in The Times, by defence correspondents, and others who have had long debates. One of the difficulties is, first, that one cannot guarantee end use and secondly there is the technology involved. In many cases it is not nuclear technology but purely mechanical engineering, and some aspects of these matters allow some spilling over from the civil to the military side.
The next point I want to establish is that we believe that one of the biggest assets this country had was its quarter of a century of first-class nuclear technology, and that the Government made no serious attempt to use that experience to get advantages for this country. It is true that when the Labour Government looked at the Treaty we saw no insuperable obstacle. But as the hon. Gentleman said, quite candidly, Euratom has been a costly flop. It has been a terrible disappointment. The member States have not worked through it. The Germans and the French have done their work independently. The member States have not made Euratom into the great federal

research programme which Euratom's officials would have liked, but that does not alter the fact that the feeding in, under the provisions of the treaty, of basic information about investment policy, research projects, the movement of fissile materials and so on, conveys to Euratom all the key information it needs to be able to monitor our own research programme.
This was the jewel in the British crown.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Diadem.

Mr. Benn: Diadem, if my hon. Friend prefers that word. He may have more acquaintance with jewellery than I have. But make no mistake—the Europeans know that this is our most valuable asset. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, as Prime Minister, made his famous Guildhall speeches on a European technological community, he was talking of the enormous contribution of British high technology in aircraft and in civil nuclear technology. But this great asset has not been used in the negotiations to get counter-vailing advantages as against, for example, our contribution to French agriculture. Why have we not used British nuclear technology to lift from our people some of the burden of financing French rural technology, which is not very good?
These are the charges we make. The way the Bill is drafted means that we have to debate this whole question on what is, in effect, a security officer's manual. The subsection is about exchange of screening procedures with other member countries. The Chamber is not as full as it might have been for this debate because one has to be an expert on nuclear energy, parliamentary procedure and one or two other things to realise the importance of the issues raised here. They are not self-evident and the Government have tried to conceal their importance.

The Solicitor-General: The Solicitor-General rose——

Mr. Benn: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not yet in the Chair of the House of Commons. I hope I never live to see the day when he is.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the characteristic courtesy with which he has


given way. I ask him to acknowledge, when he returns yet again to his suggestion that the drafting of the Bill has excluded opportunity for discussion of the issues involved in joining Euratom, the fact that the Government White Paper contained paragraphs dealing with it, that the White Paper was debated throughout last July and last October, and that the Bill on Second Reading was debated for several days in February. In not one single speech from the Front Bench opposite in all those days of debate, nor, as far as I have been able to trace, in a single Parliamentary Question, has any member of the Opposition even so much as referred to this apparently so important matter that he is raising with such anguish. That is the measure of the genuineness and sincerity of the case the right hon. Gentleman is making.

Mr. Benn: The hon. and learned Gentleman is setting himself up as a judge of what is proper and improper in Parliamentary debate. It is true that in general debate on the Common Market the effort and concentration may well have been upon wider matters, and that is all the more likely to be true if, as is the case, neither of the Front Benches saw an insuperable difficulty in the Euratom Treaty. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand the difference between a debate in principle and the tight legislative processes of Parliament, he simply does not understand the parliamentary system, which is that when one comes to the question of Euratom one must be allowed to discuss it. The fact is that but for the extraordinary accident that the hon. and learned Gentleman was forced to include in the Bill a provision for security procedures, we would not have been able to have even this debate on Euratom. The charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman is that he tries to cover under a cloud of discussion about general principle a reason why we should not debate now the important considerations which have been put to the Committee tonight.
That is the final complaint we make. That is the explanation I want to give of our vote. The Government—no one is more responsible for this than the Solicitor-General—so drew the Bill as to deny Parliament the opportunity to decide in isolation whether it wished to adhere

to the Euratom Treaty. The Government signed the Treaties of Accession before they were published. The Government drafted a 12-Clause Bill against the alternative of the 1,000-Clause Bill which we always had in our minds had we promoted this legislation. A very full and lengthy Bill would have been necessary to allow parliamentary supervision.
Finally, however the issues that I have raised tonight are regarded, they are very big issues. These matters cannot be carried through without the consent of the British public. To try to make a change as monumental as this in the whole emphasis and direction of our nuclear work and to extend and change our provisions for official secrecy, though not by any means the most important of these matters, touches at the centre of a man's loyalty to his State, and cannot be altered by the tiny majority that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends will secure yet again in the Division tonight. This matter must be taken to the British public, which alone has the authority to share what is an inheritance of our society with others within the European Community.

Mr. Loughlin: I am reluctant to intervene—[Interruption.] I can wait. The sedentary interventions of hon. Members opposite will not worry me.
I have avoided making interventions in the Committee stage till now, but by coincidence I was present when the Under-Secretary was winding up earlier. The hon. Gentleman said that, as we were the leading country in nuclear energy, we should gain more by pooling our information with the other countries which were presumably backward in nuclear energy than they would gain from us. This may be correct and axiomatic. I apologise if, by virtue of a low intelligence quotient, I cannot understand it. When I asked the Under-Secretary why it was so, he brushed it aside by saying. "Because I said so".
I do not know whether the Under-secretary is having a committee meeting with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or is listening to this debate dealing with a specific and important issue. If the House of Commons means anything, the hon. Gentleman should be listening attentively. If the hon. Gentleman does not listen to the debate and


is not prepared to answer, he does a gross disservice to the Committee. If I did not understand the matter and the fault is mine, the Under-Secretary is under a duty to explain to me in simple terms what he meant. He could not do so, and he cannot even now.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to intervene now and tell us why, if we are leaders in nuclear energy and we are to pool our information with countries which are backward in nuclear energy, he is right in saying that we are likely to get a greater advantage than those countries. If he can explain it to me, that is all right. If it is part of his Ministry brief that he does not understand, I am quite willing to talk around the point until his PPS comes to the Box to give him the information——

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered, That the Gas Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEUin the Chair]

Mr. Loughlin: It is important that the Minister shoud explain precisely what he means. I can only assume from his reluctance to do so that he cannot explain it. What he said does not accord with normal common sense and it seems that he was even dafter in making that statement than he normally is.
Will the Minister also tell me what advantages this country will gain from the agreement? The Minister has claimed that there are advantages and if he cannot explain what they are, I can only assume that there are no advantages to be gained.
The Minister has claimed that no question of military secrets is involved. He has a responsibility to the Committee to

explain the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) of the spill-off between civil and military information. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) I do not trust the French in this matter. The French have abused their position recently by the explosion of nuclear weapons in the Pacific. I do not subscribe to the theory that we should, even inadvertently, give the French the opportunity of continuing tests of nuclear weapons, which I believe to be an affront to humanity.
The Minister sits there cynically without taking the slightest notice of the Committee. By doing so he exposes the people of the world, particularly those who live in close proximity to the Pacific, to the results of nuclear tests which are an affront to and a betrayal of humanity.

Mr. Emery: I think I can help the hon. Gentleman on some of the points he raised. The nuclear tests are in no way controlled by the Euratom Treaty and are not affected by that treaty. I have nothing to add to the parliamentary reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office to a number of hon. Members in the last week or two when this matter was raised.
The hon. Gentleman asked what were some of the benefits. I would ask him to look at what I said a little earlier. I am sorry he did not understand it, but it was not quite as illogical as he was trying to imply. Let me add one further point. If he is in doubt, I should like to point out that there will be 40·6 million units of account going into research in Euratom in the next 12 months. This is something from which we shall benefit. We shall not benefit from it if we do not go into the Community.
The last point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman related to the spill-over between the civil and the military. I do not accept the point in the way in which it was maximised by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). It was noticeable that we did not have from the Opposition Dispatch Box the explanation which I tried to give on the point about inspection. I dealt with that matter earlier in my speech when perhaps the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) was not present. I would point out that there is


inspection within the Euratom Treaty—not inspection on the military side, but in trying to ensure as far as is humanly possible that none of the information will spill over, and that none of the material, technology or information to be

used from a civil point of view could be used for military purposes.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 199, Noes 222.

Division No. 262.]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Atkinson, Norman
Hamling, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hardy, Peter
Murray, Ronald King


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon


Baxter, William
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Halloran, Michael


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hattersley, Roy
Orbach, Maurice


Biffen, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Oswald, Thomas


Bishop, E. S.
Horam, John
Padley, Walter


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Paget, R. T.


Body, Richard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Janner, Greville
Pavitt, Laurie


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor
Pentland, Norman



Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Judd, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Kilfedder, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Crawshaw, Richard
Lambie, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lamborn, Harry
Roper, John


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lamond, James
Rose, Paul B.


Dalyell, Tam
Latham, Arthur
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Davidson, Arthur
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Leonard, Dick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silkin. Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Small, William


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, J. D.
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Strang, Gavin


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edelman, Maurice
McElhone, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKenzie, Gregor
Taverne, Dick


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ellis, Tom
McNamara, J. Kevin
Torney, Tom


English, Michael
Maginnis, John E.
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.


Ewing, Henry
Marquand, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Faulds, Andrew
Marsden, F.
Wallace, George


Fell, Anthony
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Weitzman, David


Fisher.Mrs.Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy



Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish. Rt. Hn. Robert
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, John
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Foley, Maurice
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Foot, Michael
Milne, Edward
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Woof, Robert


Gilbert, Dr. John
Moate, Roger



Golding, John
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molyneaux, James
Mr. James Hamilton and


Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. James Wellbeloved.


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pardoe, John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Parkinson, Cecil


Astor, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Peel, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Percival, Ian


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Hastings, Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner


Batsford, Brian
Havers, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hayhoe, Barney
Quennel, Miss J. M.


Benyon, W.
Hiley, Joseph
Raison, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Blaker, Peter
Holland, Philip
Redmond, Robert


Boscawen, Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bowden, Andrew
Hordern, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Bray, Ronald
Hornby, Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Horsnby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carlisle, Mark
James, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)



Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Scott, Nicholas


Churchill, W. S.
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Sharples, Sir Richard


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cockeram. Eric
Kimball, Marcus
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Simeons, Charles


Coombs, Derek
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooper, A. E.
Kinsey, J. R.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Corfield. Rt. Hn. Frederick
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cormack, Patrick
Kitson, Timothy
Soref, Harold


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Critchley, Julian
Lamont, Norman
Spence, John


Crouch, David
Lane, David
Sproat, Iain


Dalkeith, Earl of
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stainton, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dean, Paul
Le Marchant, Spencer
Steel, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loveridge, John
Stokes, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Luce, R. N.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tapsell, Peter


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mather, Carol
Temple, John M.


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Eyre, Reginald
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mawby, Ray
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fidler, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Trew, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fortescue, Tim
Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, David


Foster, Sir John
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fowler, Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wall, Patrick


Fox, Marcus
Money, Ernle
Warren, Kenneth


Fry, Peter
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Weatherill, Bernard


Gardner, Edward
Monro, Hector
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Glimour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
More, Jasper
Winterton. Nicholas


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Mudd, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gray, Hamish
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Younger, Hn. George


Green, Alan
Normanton, Tom



Grieve, Percy
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Oscar Murton and


Grylls, Michael
Osborn, John
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Gummer, Selwyn
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided:  Ayes 220, Noes 208.

Division No. 263.]
AYES
[10.20p.m


Adley, Robert
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Parkinson, Cecil


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peel, John


Astor, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Awdry, Daniel
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Pink, R. Bonner


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Proundfoot, Wilfred


Batsford, Brian
Hastings, Stephen
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton
Havers, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hawkins, Paul
Raison, Timothy


Benyon, W.
Hayhoe, Barney
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Redmond, Robert


Blaker, Peter
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boscawen, Robert
Holland, Philip
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Bowden, Andrew
Holt, Miss Mary
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bray, Ronald
Hordern, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornby, Richard
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)



Howell, David (Guildford)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rost, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
James, David



Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jessel, Toby
Scott, Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sharples, Richard


Churchill, W. S.
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Simeons, Charles


Cockeram, Eric
Kimball, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Coombs, Derek
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington


Cooper, A. E.
Kinsey, J. R.
Soref, Harold


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Kirk, Peter
Speed, Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Kitson, Timothy
Spence, John


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sproat, Iain


Critchley, Julian
Lamont, Norman
Stainton, Keith


Crouch, David
Lane, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dalkeith, Earl of
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Steel, David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Dean, Paul
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stokes, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loveridge, John
Tapsell, Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Luce, R. N.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Tebbit, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael



Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Mather, Carol
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)


Eyre, Reginald
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mawby, Ray
Trew, Peter


Fidler, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Waddington, David


Fortescue, Tim
Miscampbell, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Foster, Sir John
Mitchell,Lt.Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Wall, Patrick


Fowler, Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Warren, Kenneth


Fox, Marcus
Money, Ernle
Weatherill, Bernard


Fry, Peter
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gardner, Edward
Monro, Hector
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Winterton, Nicholas


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodharl, Philip
Morrison, Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhew, Victor
Mudd, David
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Younger, Hn. George


Gray, Hamish
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Green, Alan
Nott, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grieve, Percy
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Oscar Murton and


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborn, John
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Grylls, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)





NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Atkinson, Norman
Hamling, William
Murray, Ronald King


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Baxter, William
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orbach, Maurice


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hattersley, Roy
Oswald, Thomas


Biffen, John
Hooson, Emyn
Padley, Walter


Bishop, E. S.
Horam, John
Paget, R. T.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Body, Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G.



Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carmichael, Neil
John, Brymor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prescott, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cohen, Stanley
Judd, Frank
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Gerald
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Concannon, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kerr, Russell



Crawshaw, Richard
Kilfedder, James
Rodgers, William (Slockton-on-Tees)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kinnock, Neil
Roper, John


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lambie, David
Rose, Paul B.


Dalyell, Tam
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lamond, James
Rowlands, Edward


Davidson, Arthur
Latham, Arthur
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leonard, Dick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dunn, James A.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunnett, Jack
McBride, Neil
Strang, Gavin


Edelman, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McElhone, Frank
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Taverne, Dick


Ellis, Tom
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred
Maginnls, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Ewing, Harry
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Urwin, T. W.


Faulds, Andrew
Marquand, David
Varley, Eric G.


Fell, Anthony
Marsden, F.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Foley, Maurice
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Milne, Edward
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Moate, Roger
Woof, Robert


Goldlng, John
Molloy, William



Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molyneaux, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. James Wellbeloved and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)




Question accordingly agreed to.


Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

FURNISHING OF INFORMATION TO COMMUNITIES

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 368, in page 18, line 25, leave out 'and information'.
This is the last Amendment to be moved in these Committee proceedings. It will also be the shortest and dullest, and probably the least significant. So in that sense we are ending on somewhat of a note of anti-climax. But this is a probing Amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to elicit what will be involved in the Clause.
The "Estimates, returns and information", which are referred to in the Clause, under the Statistics of Trade Act and the Agriculture Act are clear in their application. They are required and furnished, as the Committee will know, in connection with the censuses of production and distribution under Section 2(1) of the Statistics of Trade Act. The agricultural statistics are furnished under Section 78 of the Agriculture Act. I have never been wholly happy with those provisions even in a domestic context.

10.30 p.m.

I had some experience of them forensically before going to the Board of Trade, when I criticised them, and I had experience of them at the Board of Trade as a Minister helping to administer them. We appreciate that all statistical patterns must be based to some extent upon contemporary interrogation, and by and large the Acts and their requirements have been accepted in the domestic context partly because they are limited. Now we have an extension into the unknown where information
may be disclosed in pursuance of a Community obligation to a Community institution".
Community obligations, as the Committee knows from earlier discussions on these matters, are both existing and future. On the existing ones perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade can oblige the Committee with a summary of what will be involved in the estimates, returns and information under the Community obligations. Even more important is that he should give us an estimate of what we may be liable to hereafter in the extension

of the requirement to Community obligations.

We are extending from a domestic requirement which is precise and restricted into an open-ended commitment which is out with our control. It is part of the pattern of the Bill and part of the reason which has given rise to concern and apprehension. I move the Amendment in order to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity to provide the information to the Committee.

Mr. English: As I understand it, at present a civil servant who reveals confidential information is liable to prosecution under the Official Secrets Acts. As I also understand it, such a civil servant is not liable to prosecution under either British or Community law for revealing confidential information if he is, for example, a servant of the Commission. I would ask the Minister therefore, first, if he will relieve British civil servants of the criminal penalties of revealing information to which they are now subject since their counterparts in Brussels will not be subject to the same criminal sanctions.
I accept that the Brussels civil servant may be found guilty of misconduct and liable to dismissal for revealing information but I am concerned about criminal proceedings. If the Minister is not prepared to agree to that, would he, as an alternative, indicate that a Brussels civil servant who reveals information should be liable to prosecution in the Community and not merely treated as if he had slipped on the doorstep in front of the boss?
Would the Minister also advise British businessmen that the confidential information which they at present send in to Ministries is no longer protected by the criminal law?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When my right hon. Friend the Minister replies, I wonder whether he would go a little further in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in regard to the words which are the governing words here:
in pursuance of a Community obligation".
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General coined at an earlier stage of these debates the memorable apophthegm "An obligation is an


obligation is an obligation". It would be a considerable reassurance to the Committee to be told that in this context, too, "obligation" means no less than what it says—in other words, that the Clause does not permit the information to be disclosed in the course of consultation with the Community institutions or in the course of discussions which might lead up to the creation of a Community obligation, that it is only when a Community obligation, enforceable or otherwise, but still, in the terms of my hon. and learned Friend an obligation, exists that it triggers off the right to disclose this information.
That is important, because if those terms were not strictly observed we might well find that a certain process of interchange was gradually built up which became a tradition between the Civil Service in this country and the civil service of the Community. If the Clause is to be strictly interpreted, it carries with it a certain safeguard, but it would be desirable that my right hon. Friend should confirm that it will be strictly interpreted and that it means "obligation" in the full sense of the term.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: The Amendment is extremely germane to the whole problem of what entry into the Community implies for us, and it is germane in the context of the last debate.
I hope that in replying to the very pertinent points raised the Minister will not take refuge in the same field as the Government did in the last debate. The Solicitor-General in particular intervened on a number of occasions to say that because the Labour Government produced a White Paper which appeared to accept the principle of entry to Euratom, and because exchange of information would be necessary in that, Parliament should have no opportunity to discuss the details of the Euratom Treaty. It is right to press the objection to that argument now, in case it is presented again by the Government. The fallacy in it is illustrated by the following example.
If it is said that the White Papers of both parties agreed that there was no obstacle to our entry into Euratom, and that there is no obstacle to the exchange of information on the basis of the Clause, the fact that there is no obstacle does not create a binding agreement. That is obvious by a comparison with companies.

Nobody in his senses would say that because the boards of directors of two companies agreed that there was no obstacle to a merger, the merger immediately took place as a result, with no reference to the shareholders. Therefore, the Amendment should be pressed at least to the extent of discovering from the Government the information they have in mind.
I have a number of specific points. First, are the Government seriously saying that information will be conveyed by this country to Community institutions in pursuance of Community obligations only under the Clause? That is what the Bill appears to say, that information of this kind will be disclosed only under the Clause. The proposition appears laughable. It seems obvious that a great deal of information is bound to be disclosed in pursuance of Community obligations going far beyond the Clause. Is the information to be limited to this or not?
The Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, was enacted against a background of seeking to obtain statistics which would enable economic trends to be obtained so that better Government forward planning could be made—a laudable purpose. But the Clause refers to Section 9 of the Act, and that Section specifically deals with a narrow range of statistics and provides severe safeguards. Information is to be conveyed only under very stringent safeguards. On the face of it, these safeguards are not applicable to a Community institution. How then do the Government propose to ensure that the information is to be disclosed "in like manner"? They have done it effectively for the citizens of this country. How are they to ensure it is done "in like manner" for Community institutions. I press that matter in regard to both the Statistics of Trade Act and the Agriculture Act, 1947.
The statistics sought under Section 80 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, were also stringently safeguarded. There again, the background was to obtain statistics to enable agricultural production and the like to be estimated, and information about the use of land was also sought. The safeguards which were fed into the Act were very stringent. But I have said they are not safeguards which can in any way be extended to a Community institution. Therefore, I press the Government to answer these two specific questions.

Mr. Noble: Article 213 of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community provides that the Commission may, under conditions laid down by the Council, collect information required for the performance of the tasks entrusted to it.
For some years the Communities have been engaged in developing, in consultation with Member States, a programme of reporting statistical information to the Commission. The United Kingdom is looking forward to playing its full part in this work. No one in the House can deny the need for comprehensive up-to-date Community statistics if the Communities are to operate effectively, nor the value of such statistics to Government, industrial and other undertakings and individuals in this country.
The Statistical Office of the European Communities, which is part of the Commission, fulfils much the same rôle in the Communities as does the Government's Statistical Service in this country.
The collection of statistics in the Community is undertaken in one of three ways: first, after discussion between the member States when no Community obligation arises and any information is supplied on a voluntary basis: secondly, by an appropriate Community instrument imposing an obligation upon member States to provide information: thirdly, by directly applicable Community instruments binding directly on undertakings. No problem of confidentiality will arise in relation to information furnished by Her Majesty's Government to the Community on a voluntary basis since only aggregate information already available, in published or publishable form, which does not consist of, or reveal, information relating to any individual business or farm would be made available. Current Community statistical obligations generally call for aggregate data, which would not be expected, as a rule, to disclose the activities of individual businesses. However, the possibility that some particular obligation on Her Majesty's Government to furnish information might involve disclosure cannot be ruled out. The fact that particular figures might reveal the operations of individual businesses may not be known until the figures have been collected and processed, or the position may have

changed since the figures were last collected.
As regards the second and third categories to which I have just referred, Clause 12 is concerned only with information which member States are required under a Community obligation to supply to a Community institution and which is covered by the disclosure provisions in the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, and the Agriculture Act, 1947. It is not concerned with information which the Commission is empowered under Community law to collect direct from undertakings.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 12 provides that information disclosing the activities of an individual business or farm, collected under the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, or the Agriculture Act, 1947, can be furnished to a Community institution to meet a Community obligation in the same way as it might be furnished to another Government Department under the 1947 Acts. We are concerned here only with the information which must be provided under Community law. If such information were not provided under Clause 12, it would have to be provided in another way.
The United Kingdom statistical system, procedures and classifications will all need review on our entry into the Community to see to what extent they can usefully be aligned with the Community's statistical system. We shall benefit from this alignment because our own statistics will be more closely comparable with those of the other member States and the Community as a whole. This will clearly benefit all who use statistics and will mean that Clause 12 will serve an increasingly useful purpose for those Departments which collect statistics and those who supply them.
The likely effects of the Amendment are obscured by the difference in wording between the relevant Sections of the two Acts. Since Section 9 of the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, makes reference
…individual estimates or returns and no information relating to individual undertakings…
it may be that the phrase "and information" has been used as a means of


requiring, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) suggested, the deletion of "information" wherever it occurs, and no matter how qualified. If so, the Amendment is open to the criticism that it would, within the generally restrictive framework of Section 9 of the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947, allow the disclosure of individual estimates or returns received from firms but not of items of information about individual firms. It is difficult to see what useful purpose this would serve.
Section 80 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, on the other hand, refers only to
…information relating to any particular land or business…
and not to estimates or returns, so that in this case the deletion of "and information" would nullify the whole reference to the Agriculture Act in Clause 12

and so deny the benefits of the Clause to the agricultural community. I do not believe this is what the sponsors of the Amendment had in mind. Certainly, this would not be acceptable since it is the Government's hope and desire to keep the burden of form filling on the farmers to a minimum. Nor does the Amendment have anything to commend it in relation to the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject it.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I cannot say that I am wholly reassured, but, in view of what I said in moving the Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided:  Ayes 217, Noes 206.

Division No. 264.]
AYES
[10.45 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Eden, Sir John
Hornby, Richard


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.DamePatricia


Allason, James (Hemel Hempslead)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Elliott, R. W. (Nc'tle-upon-Tyne.N.
Howell, David (Guildford)


Astor, John
Emery, Peter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Eyre, Reginald
Iremonger, T. L.


Awdry, Daniel
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
James, David


Balniel, Lord
Fidler, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Batsford, Brian
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Fietcher-Cooke, Charles
Jopling, Michael


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Benyon, W.
Fortescue, Tim
Kershaw, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Foster, Sir John
Kimball, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Fowler, Norman
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Boscawen, Robert
Fox, Marcus
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bowden, Andrew
Fry, Peter
Kinsey, J. R.


Bray, Ronald
Gardner, Edward
Kirk, Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gibson-Watt, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lamont, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Goodhew, Victor
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Gower, Raymond
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Carlisle, Mark
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gray, Hamish
Longden, Gilbert


Chapman, Sydney
Green, Alan
Loveridge, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Grieve, Percy
Luce, R. N.


Churchill, W. S.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Grylls, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.


Clegg, Walter

McLaren, Martin


Cockeram, Eric
Gummer, Selwyn
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Cooke, Robert
Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Coombs, Derek
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mather, Carol


Cooper, A. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Cormack, Patrick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray


Costain, A. P.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Critchley, Julian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Crouch, David
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Havers, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman


Dean, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Money, Ernle


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Drayson, G. B.
Holt, Miss Mary
Monro, Hector


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hordern, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus




More, Jasper
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Morrison, Charles
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Tebbit, Norman


Mudd, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Temple, John M.


Neave, Airey
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Rost, Peter
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Normanton, Tom
Scott, Nicholas
Trew, Peter


Nott, John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Tugendhat, Christopher


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sharples, Richard
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Osborn, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Waddington, David


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Simeons, Charles
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wall, Patrick


Parkinson, Cecil
Skeet, T. H. H.
Weatherill, Bernard


Peel, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Percival Ian
Soref, Harold
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Speed, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Pink, R. Bonner
Spence, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Proudtoot, Wilfred
Sproat, Iain
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stainton, Keith
Woodnutt, Mark


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stanbrook, Ivor
Worsley, Marcus


Raison, Timothy
Steel, David
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Younger, Hn. George


Redmond, Robert
Stokes, John



Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Oscar Murton and


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.




NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ewing, Harry
Leonard, Dick


Armstrong, Ernest
Faulds, Andrew
Lestor, Miss Joan


Ashton, Joe
Fell, Anthony
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Atkinson, Norman
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lipton, Marcus


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foley, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foot, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Biffen, John
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
McBride, Neil


Body, Richard
Golding, John
McCartney, Hugh


Booth, Albert
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Gourlay, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Grant, John D. (Islington,E.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marquand, David


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsden, F.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hamling, William
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish. Rt. Hn. Robert


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mendelson, John


Cohen, Stanley
Hattersley, Roy
Mikardo, Ian


Coleman, Donald
Hooson, Emlyn
Millan, Bruce


Concannon, J. D.
Horam, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moate, Roger


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Molloy, William


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molyneaux, James


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Janner, Greville
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davidson, Arthur
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morrison, Charles


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
John, Brynmor
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Murray, Ronald King


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Oakes, Gordon


Doig, Peter
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Ogden, Eric


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
O'Halloran, Michael


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Judd, Frank
O'Malley, Brian


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kaufman, Gerald
Orbach, Maurice


Driberg, Tom
Kelley, Richard
Orme, Stanley


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kerr, Russell
Oswald, Thomas


Dunn, James A.
Kilfedder, James
Padley, Walter


Dunnett, Jack
Kinnock, Neil
Paget, R. T.


Edelman, Maurice
Lambie, David
Palmer, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lamborn, Harry
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lamond, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Ellis, Tom
Latham, Arthur
Pendry, Tom


English, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted
Pentland, Norman


Evans, Fred
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Perry, Ernest G.







Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Silverman, Julius
Varley, Eric G.


Prescott, John
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Small, William
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Probert, Arthur
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wallace, George


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Spearing, Nigel
Weitzman, David


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Stallard, A. W.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Whitlock, William


Roper, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rose, Paul B.
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rowlands, Ted
Swain, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Sandelson, Neville
Taverne, Dick



Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Torney, Tom
Mr. James Hamilton and


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robert
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to the Order of 2nd May.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

GAS BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [30th June] proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Clause 5

PROGRAMMES FOR MEASURES INVOLVING CAPITAL OUTLAY

Which Amendment was:  No. 13, in page 5, line 22, at end insert:
(2) In granting approval for such programme as referred to in the foregoing subsection the Secretary of State shall have regard to the effective national co-ordination of all fuel and energy supplies at present available or to be developed in the future.—[Mr. Varley.]

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: When I was dealing with this matter last week I promised to be comparatively brief, so I hope that the example I shall set will be emulated by hon. Members opposite.
On Friday I spoke of the prospect of having a few run-offs on the review of energy policy. The Minister said that he kept the matter under constant review. Run-offs are essential. I said on Friday that 1967 was the last occasion when a certain number of factors were brought forward which gave an idea of what

should be done. Since then little has been forthcoming.
Several matters of major importance should be taken into account. What is the Government's policy on the importation of LNG? Is it to be derived from North Africa? The present reserves in the North Sea appear to be 4,000 million barrels of oil and up to 50 trillion cubic feet of gas, capable of sustaining a rate of production in the 1970s of 1·4 million barrels a day.
The next factor to be considered in the run-off would be the selection of the reactor systems for nuclear power stations. What advance have we achieved in coal technology; because this might be of great importance to the coal industry? There are trade factors which are of vital interest.
Imports from Gulf oil producers, other Middle East States and North Africa totalled £3,910 million in 1970, of which the United Kingdom received a large share. We sent a considerable volume of exports to the Middle East. It is important that all these matters should be considered.
The Minister has been tardy in disclosing his views to the House about what should happen. He has not been in office for long, and we wish him well. We hope that he will spend many years in his post. His predecessors did not bring forward a fuel policy. Although it may not be appropriate to consider the implications of an oil policy in any discussion of Clause 5, a little haste should be made in considering these matters. What is the significance of the North Sea? [Laughter.] Hon. Members have that spirit of levity this evening which augurs ill for the length of the debate.
There seem to be eventual reserves, if we accept the view disclosed in the


Financial Times recently by Mr. M. M. Permell, the Managing Director of BP, who said that eventually there may be about 20 billion barrels. If we measured the resources of the Middle East we should find 18·5 times that quantity of oil already present in its reserves. One of the cardinal factors on which we must rely is that the United Kingdom will continue to import heavily from the Middle East and North Africa, although we shall receive considerable benefits from the North Sea.
It has been said that we are in the early stages of exploration. There is a lot more to come and there might be many surprises. A lot of money may be made, and a lot may be lost. What we are concerned about is the stability of reservoirs. Lock ton has been a shock to us all. Are all the reservoirs which have been discovered there likely to sustain the daily output recorded? We are delighted that the North Sea is likely to bring a contribution to our balance of payments of about £500 million per year in the 1980s.
There is a great misconception about the shortage of energy. There is no shortage of energy. After 2000 AD oil may run out, but it may go well beyond 2000 AD. We can fall back on the considerable supplies of coal available, and there is natural gas. The balance, if it is not derived from the North Sea, from the Continent or from the USSR can be brought to these shores as liquefied natural gas. Then there is all the potential of nuclear energy. There is also the Athabasca oil sands, and oil shales. It is quite wrong to say that there may be a shortage of energy overall; it is pertinent to say that there may be a shortage in one particular supply. It may be in oil eventually, or in natural gas, but other lines of energy will become available to supply our requirements. Our requirements are that we must have a constant supply of cheap energy from many sources, and we must have a stable source of supply.
I shall support the Minister if he adopts the view that in considering the approvals under Clause 5 the Government will have regard to the national co-ordination of all fuel and energy supplies available or developed in the future, but I am

against the Amendment being written into the Bill.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: The Friday "regulars" who have been following the Bill through on Friday afternoons will find it pleasurable to be discussing it at a more convenient time in the evening. I congratulate my hon. Friends who have placed the Amendment on the Order Paper. It is far-reaching and worthy of the widest possible discussion.
We must remember that the Amendment has been tabled because of the fears of the industrial areas of the East Midlands, the North-West and Scotland. In terms of fuel policy, what they see now is not a step forward but a step back. We are perturbed when we read the statements of such people as the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Chairman of the Gas Board. Government Departments, which should be taking more control of fuel policy, are opting out and seemingly allowing the Chairman of the CEGB to dictate the fuel policy that he wishes to pursue in power station development.
It is that aspect which causes apprehension amongst hon. Members. It affects our constituencies. I represent a constituency in North Nottingham shire, where the editorials and correspondence columns of local newspapers show clear evidence of the worries about a national integrated fuel policy. It must not be forgotten that there are still areas of the country totally dependent upon the correct decisions being taken about our fuel policy, and the fears manifest themselves in the local Press and at all one's meetings. One had to look hard in the national Press recently to find reports of a speech by Mr. Ezra in Washington, D.C. In my local weekly newspaper it was reported verbatim, nearly a whole page being devoted to it.
We are perturbed about the assets in our areas. In the Notts coal field, for example, a new reserve of 82 million tons has been discovered. Nature has been very kind to Nottingham shire. We have coal reserves, and we have the river. Thanks to past Government policies we have a fair number of coal-fired power stations. We may talk about nuclear power and about gas and oil-fired power stations, but there are none cheaper than the coal-fired stations along the river Trent.
It is foolish to waste our natural assets. The present state of affairs is very sad. We have the CEGB going out on a limb, with coal imports running at between 8 million and 9 million tons a year. That coal is costing more per ton than the board would have to pay for coal mined on its own doorstep.
On Friday my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) discussed other fuels, and he said that the days of cheap oil were over. He used the word "blackmail", and I appreciate the terms in which he used it. But the days of cheap oil are over for the simple reason that at the very beginning the oil——

Mr. Neil McBride: My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) is putting forward a powerful economic argument for the Nottingham shire coal fields and the indigenous fuel to be found there. But is he saying that that would be a better proposition than being too heavily dependent on, say, expensive imported non-sulphuric oil from Libya?

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Concannon: That is entirely the argument which I am developing, and I am saying that it is foolish to waste our national assets against over-dependence on oil. We are becoming far too over-dependent on oil and other imported fuels, while we are running down the coal fields. As I develop my argument, I can see reasons why this country will be forced to run down the coal industry even further. I shall say some more about that later.
The days of cheap oil from the Middle East are gone; the people who live in those countries have learnt a lot in the past few years. Western countries have used their know-how and business techniques to get oil pretty cheaply from those countries. Now we are beginning to pay the right price, possibly, for that oil.
I have visited those countries to see their economic state. For centuries they had nothing but desert waste, and now, all of a sudden, they find they are among the richest nations per capita, in the world. I do not blame them for using their position. The days of cheap oil are over and we must plan fuel policy with this in mind.
Many of our colleagues argued that our expensive nuclear power programme was too large in the first place, and that, instead of being experimental, it was shoved into the energy market without experiments being properly done. The programme has proved more and more expensive as it goes along. I should like to see the Department take careful note of this Amendment which shows the fears of many of us in this country.
If we pull back, and do not keep control over the Chairman of the CEGB and he is allowed to go on the free market for fuels, it will be to the detriment of many in this country and certainly to the detriment of my area and of Nottinghamshire as a whole.
The other part of this matter which is worrying us is the importation of coal through the CEGB and others, running to 8 million or 9 million tons a year and that we are paying more for it. One can see that even if we stop the import of coal now, from the early discussions on the EEC Bill—and we have only had two hours to talk about coal and steel matters in that Bill—I am right to be perturbed about a co-ordinated fuel policy when we go into the EEC. This also needs careful watching.
From my reading and knowledge of the EEC Bill, I would say it would have been impossible to settle the last coal mines strike if we had then been in the EEC. When we are in the EEC, the present policy of the Community and the non-allowance of subsidisation could well mean that the EEC will force our hand and close even more mines, if we are not careful. That is what happened in France and Belgium. They are dependent on integrated fuel policies in the E.E.C. to the extent of 80 per cent. of the fuel.

Mr. Skeet: Coal was reduced in France and Belgium for entirely other reasons than those indicated by the hon. Member.

Mr. Concannon: They were reduced for economic reasons. The same economic reasons will apply in this country when we are in the EEC.

Mr. Skeet: Nonsense.

Mr. Concannon: We shall find out. If we are still together when the effects of entry into the EEC are applied to the


coal and other industries we can discuss the matter. That will probably be in two or three years. Of course, I shall be on the other side of the House and the hon. Gentleman will be over here in Opposition, and I shall be offering the excuse that it is because we are in the Common Market.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We are coming out.

Mr. Concannon: My hon. Friend can make his own speech later.
The Minister has said that our energy policy is continually under review. I hope he means that. Many of us are deeply involved in our areas because we represent what might be termed "one industry" areas. It is, so to speak, our industry, our town, our life. We are very perturbed when we see not only a tightening of the reins on this industry but a slackening off, because it constitutes our livelihood, our being, and the welfare of the areas we represent.
We would like the Amendment to be accepted, or, if not, at least an assurance from the Minister that he recognises the fears behind it and that he will look at it closely.

Mr. David Stoddart: I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) say that we had ample fuel reserves in the world. It might seem like that to him now, but Western industrial societies, with their voracious appetites for energy, will use up those reserves very quickly unless some conservation policy is adopted.
I do not want to widen my argument. The Amendment refers to a national fuel policy. We urgently need a national fuel policy, Indeed, that policy is well overdue.
Having worked in a nationalised industry, I have always been impressed by the absurdity of competition between nationalised fuel industries. Such competition is completely and utterly nonsensical, wasteful of effort, and in no way gives the consumer the benefits he should derive through nationalisation.
I have always thought it odd that a person would go to an electricity showroom and be told, "This is the best fuel for you", could then go to a gas showroom and be told the same, and, in addition, have the National Coal Board tell

him that coal is the best fuel for him. The poor consumer does not know where he stands. If he believed all three, he would have a mixture of fuels and probably have the worst of all worlds. From that point of view alone it would seem that we need co-ordination and a national fuel policy.
We need to conserve our supplies of energy, not waste them. World fuel reserves are being exhausted at an alarming rate. On Friday myhon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) said that the United States would shortly be importing a great deal of oil from the rest of the world, and their appetite will grow and not diminish. As the underdeveloped nations of the world develop so their appetites for the world's fuel resources will grow and they will feel entitled to their fare share of them.
The Under-Secretary of State said on Friday that the Secretary of State took into account overall fuel policy. I should hope so. What is he there for if not to do that? But I am not sure that his Department is properly equiped to do the job. We have not yet seen the end of the problems caused by the disastrous fuel policies pursued by the Department in the 'sixties. The effects of those policies are still with us, and they will be for some time to come.
What we need is a national fuel authority, free from day-to-day political pressure, but subject to overall parliamentary control. Such an authority would consider our energy requirements, the resources available to meet those requirements and the need for fuel conservation. The national boards would be subservient to the authority.
I think, too, that if such an authority were brought into being, and if we were able to pursue a proper national fuel policy, the oil industry would have to be taken into public ownership. Without that, but with all the other forms of fuel being nationalised, a national fuel policy would not be possible. I do not expect right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with me about this, nor do I expect them to take steps to bring that about, but I am confident that my right hon. Friends will soon be on that side of the House and that when they are they will be prepared to put such progressive and necessary policies into effect.


My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that the chairmen of the nationalised fuel boards are making the running. Under the present system they make the running because they have to do a particular job in a particular way and get a certain return on capital. They therefore try to produce their fuel at the cheapest possible rate so that they are competitive and can meet the targets set by the Government. In defence of them it must be said that they have to make the running, but my hon. Friend is correct in saying that they should not have to do that and that it is Parliament and the Government who should be making the running and deciding what fuels should be used for particular purposes.
When we debated this matter on Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield queried the use of natural gas for the generation of electricity. On the face of it it sounds a sensible thing to do, but I, too, query this policy. I have always felt it to be rather absurd that someone takes agas, puts it into a furnace, converts it into heat to boil water which is then converted into a gas which drives a steam turbine which is connected to an alternator which turns out electricity. Why on earth should one change a gas to something else and then back to a gas to produce that sort of power? Furthermore, by so doing, far from conserving energy one is wasting it very badly.
11.30 p.m.
Our newest and most efficient power stations have an overall thermal efficiency of no higher than 40 per cent. It takes some doing to reach even that figure. But the present proposal is not to burn natural gas in our most up to date power stations but to burn it in some of our old ones where the thermal efficiency is as low as 20 to 25 per cent. Therefore, by the conversion of natural gas into a flame and back to gas one is wasting between 60 and 75 per cent. of the heat value of that fuel. That is entirely and utterly wasteful.
The Chairman of the CEGB will persist that he wants to be free to use whatever fuel suits him best. He ought not to be allowed to make that decision without the intervention of Parliament through a national fuel policy.
There is a need for a national fuel authority in many other respects as well. Although what I shall say may seem a little out of order, I think that it will not be found to be out of order. A national fuel authority ought to be reviewing some of the policies being pursued day to day by the nationalised boards. Let us take as an example the CEGB. At present it is pursuing, and has pursued over a long period, a policy of building large generating sets in large power stations, 500–600 megawatt sets in power stations of 2,000 or more magawatt capacity. It is essential for this sort of undertaking to be sited near estuaries or in other areas with large cooling water supplies. The CEGB builds these large power stations because, it says, it is cheaper to transmit electricity than to transmit coal. But we have to balance the overall efficiency with strategic and environmental considerations and to take into account the fuel reserves available.
In energy terms, I believe that our largest indigenous reserves are of coal. If we are to make use of the largest reserves we have, we should be concentrating on our coal powered stations We should be saying "No" to oil and we should be re-examining very critically the nuclear power programme to see, first, whether it is viable and, second, whether it is safe for the community.
My point is that the CEGB is constructing these large generating sets in large power stations because it can obtain a better overall thermal efficiency. But it would be very much better for the country—and the countryside, because we should have fewer straggling pylons all over the place—if we built smaller generating sets in various parts of the country. It would certainly help the load balancing problems which exist when huge loads of electricity are transmitted over vast tracts of countryside. The small loss of overall thermal efficiency would not matter too much bearing in mind that the fuel being used was an indigenous fuel, which would not be denied to us in time of war and which is readily accessible; indeed, a fuel which would provide jobs in areas which are socially deprived.
The Government should seriously consider the problems of our fuel industries and energy requirements. I hope that they


will do that as a matter of urgency because time is running out very fast. If we are to meet future needs, we require an overall fuel policy, and I trust that the Government will seriously consider setting up a national fuel authority, whether or not they nationalise oil.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: At some time in our lives we are all guilty of not wishing to hear the toll of the bell ringing out a truism unless it confirms all our previous thinking, and when the bell tolls all our previously conceived notions or prejudices take charge of our thinking. In political terms, it could be described as burying one's head in the sand or taking up an ostrich-like posture—and this can leave a certain part of the anatomy dangerously exposed. Friday, 11th March, saw some hon. Members conforming to the description I have just given when the Minister informed us that, based on all up-to-date forecasts and information, the bonanza of the North Sea gas fields would dry up in 20 years. This was a serious statement which we can disregard only at our future peril.
Nevertheless, here we have a tremendous source of energy which we must utilise to the full and prudently. Euphoria on the finding and subsequent use of North Sea gas has landed two of our European neighbours—France and Holland—in the cart, almost up the creek without a paddle. France, having planned a demand rising at 20 per cent. a year, is faced with the realisation that come 1974 there will be a serious shortage of natural gas. Holland was so intoxicated with its discovery that immediately it dismantled its other indigenous source of energy—its coal industry. Its enthusiasm was to an extent understandable since the Groningen field was reputed to be the biggest or among the largest in the world, estimated to have a life of 25 years plus and ready to yield between 100,000 million and 105,000 million cubic metres a year. But only in May the Minister for Economic Affairs in Holland had to tell his Parliament that the yield was 22,000 million cubic metres less.
The way in which we use our find has always been a matter for debate. "Use it for power stations" has been one of the loudest parrot cries from the benches opposite. "Encourage industry to share

in the bonanza". One could feel in all the arguments which have been put forward as to how we should use this bonanza from the bed of the North Sea a cold-blooded commercial judgment, and this has come into play in almost all our debates in the House.
Large-scale capital is employed in the landing and piping of this wonderful natural resource which we have recently discovered. The discovery, however, must be kept in perspective in relation to our total energy needs. Valuable though it is, its value to our demand will be small. We shall never have a bottomless pit upon which to draw. It is expected to cover about 15 per cent. of our energy requirements, equal to about 60 million tons of coal equivalent. The lessons learned elsewhere are lessons from which we must surely profit, or neglect at our peril. A policy of indiscriminate use would perhaps give short-term commercial advantages but would be a nonsense in the long term since it would mean a rapid contraction in the coal industry.
I will hazard the guess that we have yet to feel the full draught from the rundown in the coal industry of the last few years. I can certainly speak for my own constituency and for other constituencies in Northumberland. We have had many unhappy individuals and many unhappy homes as a direct result of the precipitate closure of collieries, closures which need never have been carried out if Britain had had a national co-ordinated fuel policy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): Is the hon. Member suggesting that under the Labour Government's fuel policy White Paper—the last one which they produced—there would have been no colliery closures? Part of the whole policy which was criticised by many hon. Members on the Labour side was the rundown of the coal industry that their supposedly co-ordinated policy was bringing about.

Mr. Brown: I am surprised that the Minister should suddenly get so prickly, because I am not criticising closures under the present Government. I am criticising closures in recent years under both Governments, and I do not spare my own Government in that criticism because I believe that they acquiesced far too much in the demands of the then Chairman of the National Coal Board.
If suitable alternative jobs could be found for our miners I would take no exception to closures, provided that they were in the national interest, and provided that we had alternative sources of fuel. Pits cannot be closed down like turning off the gas. Pits are not factories, simply waiting for a new tenant after the old one moves out. To close a pit is to destroy it for ever. Fossil fuels are a wasting asset and this is an argument for using them with care.
Any confusion about the use of North Sea gas is dwarfed by the misconceptions which exist about the use of the new discovery of oil in the North Sea. It is not yet known what will be the life-span of the discoveries. Everyone in this country must hope, as I do, that the bed of the North Sea is swimming fathoms deep in oil. But, whatever the extent of the find, with the insatiable demands of modern society for oil its life-span will not be as great as that of coal. Many energy enthusiasts, faced with the possibility of a shortage of natural gas have argued that it can be made from oil. It can, but equally it can be made from coal. Indeed, a leading oil company is investing a considerable amount of money in Scotland in a joint experiment with the Gas Council on this. But will there be the abundance of oil available to do that, bearing in mind all the competing uses that oil has? In his 10th March statement the Minister said that latest estimates indicated that we might be able to get from the North Sea about 25 million tons of oil by 1975, which was about a quarter of our present use of oil. A very big "might" indicates that the figure of 25 million tons could reach 75 million, which is three-quarters of our present oil consumption, but who is to say what our consumption will be in, say, 10 years' time? Clearly, demand will then be very much greater.
11.45 p.m.
Other important factors emerge. For example, North Sea oil is sure to be expensive, understandably so, for the finding and landing of it is a triumph for modern technology, and a very costly one. But we must accept that the days of cheap oil anywhere in the world ended with the rise of nationalism in the underprivileged peoples of the Middle East.
Two points to cause extreme concern on the factual position of oil must be

stressed. First, the world is using more oil than it is discovering—hence the importance of our find in the North Sea. Secondly, our oil is of a very light nature, so that we must import heavier crude oil to mix with it. Therefore, any talk of our being self-sufficient in oil at any time is a nonsense, unless a field of heavy crude oil should be discovered off our shores. As far as we can see ahead, we shall need to import oil and to pay the price. Equally, we must exploit any North Sea resources we have. We cannot afford not to.
The problem of modern industrial economies in respect of oil can be seen in the fact that in the United States of America oil accounts for 44 per cent. of energy consumption, natural gas 33 per cent. and coal 18 per cent. This has happened in spite of the fact that the United States has spent the past decade in a fruitless attempt to make the nation self-sufficient. Oil imports have been ever-increasing. The quota system which was introduced was meant to discipline imports, but it has been cut through in spite of the oil field find in Alaska. On present trends the United States economy will be faced with an extra burden of 15 million dollars a year for foreign oil. With this burden added to the already heavy burdens on the dollar, the dollar might well have to be further devalued.
A policy of conservation in the use of oil is clearly vital in the not-too-distant future, if not the immediate future. The need for a strong, virile coal industry is equally imperative. We just cannot do without coal. Surely that lesson was learnt earlier in the year during the miners' strike, even by the wildest men on the Tory benches, because they have had to concede that we do not have an alternative fuel supply. It will be necessary to maintain a strong coal industry producing a minimum of 120 million to 140 million tons yearly.
Two problems loom very large. The first is that with an ageing manpower in the pits we could be in dire trouble in keeping the pits going—all the more necessary to make the industry more attractive, to enlist the support of the recruits we require in the industry. Secondly, with exhausted pits being closed, if we are to maintain the production necessary for our future prosperity


new sinkings will have to be thought about, with all the decision-making problems on the raising of the necessary capital. This is going to be a headache for any Secretary of State.
It is no secret that the Cabinet has been sitting for some time on a report on the problems of an energy policy. In the report a strong case has been made out for the retention of a strong and, if possible, expanding coal industry. A decision becomes more important as the months proceed. The Government cannot sit on the report much longer.
Nevertheless, I concede that the Government's problems have not been made easier by the progress of the nuclear power industry, which was once heralded with loud trumpeting—certainly from hon. Members opposite—as the cure-all of our energy problems.
What is nuclear energy producing? It is producing only the equivalent of 10 million tons of coal a year. The then Tory Government, in their Suez adventure in 1956, pushed us into a prohibitively expensive nuclear gamble.
Now, after about £2,000 million has been expended, the Government must be seriously disappointed at the output of the nuclear power industry. The first generation of nuclear power stations, Magnox, cannot produce at full capacity because of technical problems. The second generation, the advanced gas cooled reactor, has been tragically bedevilled by technical troubles and ever-escalating costs of producing. These reactors are as much as four years behind target, and not one is yet in production.
That is the story of the great nuclear power industry which was going to be the cure-all of our ailments. We were told that we would not need pits. Not many years ago people were saying "We will not need miners". In many areas, such as my constituency, considerable pleasure was derived at the thought of miners being provided with alternative and pleasanter forms of employment, which would mean that men would not have to go down into the bowels of the earth to dig for the nation's energy. Alas, this was not to be.
However, I still believe that nuclear power is an essential ingredient of a

future power policy, although recent reports tend to suggest we need to ensure that radiation dangers are adequately catered for. I am sure that more will be mentioned in the House in the weeks and months to come about the danger of radiation in the production of nuclear power.
There are two other forms of energy. Solar energy has been touched on or lightly discussed for many years now. It may be that before the end of the century we shall see developments in that direction. Perhaps in a decade or so people will be talking in terms of solar energy as they talked two decades ago about nuclear energy. However, I suggest there will still be a need at that time for a healthy, strong coal industry.
The Secretary of State may have to give some thought to tidal energy. Thirty or forty years ago tidal energy might have sounded like some dream article in a boys' two penny weekly—which no doubt would now be a 6p weekly. In those days there were theories about nuclear, solar and tidal energy. It may be that in a decade or two decades ahead we shall have this much heralded and vaunted tidal energy being talked about. Again people may be saying "We will not need miners any more". Again, I suggest we shall still need a strong and healthy coal industry.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if I were to develop strongly the case for solar energy or tidal energy you would be constrained to call me to order, since the Amendment refers only to the Secretary of State—and I assume that means the present Secretary of State—so I will content myself with those observations.

Mr. Joseph Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) for this sensible Amendment, which would strengthen the Bill. We are discussing the Gas Bill, but the Minister, seeing the miners present on this side of the House, will realise that we are really here to talk about the coal industry, because we cannot get away from the fact that a national fuel policy or the national co-ordination of fuel supplies is as necessary now as it was 20 years ago—indeed, more so.
A national fuel policy should not be left to the chairmen of the nationalised industries concerned because otherwise


coal would get short thrift. This is a matter for Parliament, and Parliament alone. Whichever Government are in power, Tory or Labour, must use our natural resources to the best possible advantage to the nation, including North Sea oil and gas and our old faithful, coal. If we do not use all the fuels available to us through a wise national fuel policy, our grandchildren will curse us for the inept way in which we threw away their heritage.
We all welcome the great finds of natural gas on the Continental Shelf, described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) as a bonanza, and the vast investment which has made it possible. But that gas must be used in the context of a national fuel policy. We shall also have North Sea oil—doubly welcome because we shall thereby have to rely less on Middle East oil and will be less at the mercy of the whims of sheikhs or anyone else, and will also not have so heavy a drain on our balance of payments for oil imports.
My hon. Friend has said that the coal industry will play an ever-increasing and important part in a national fuel policy. Even at the present rate of extraction there is over 100 years left of coal supply in the country. That is not taking account of the recent find, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), in the Nottinghamshire area or of the great possibilities east of the present coal field in the Yorkshire area, particularly in the Selby district east of Kellingley, one of the most modern pits in Yorkshire.
The United States and the Soviet Union are increasing the potentials of their coal industries to a great extent, realising that oil and gas are not inexhaustible.
Another aspect to be emphasised is that there is no further need for coal imports. We are producing enough coal ourselves. The abolition of coal imports would give added confidence to the people working in the industry.
12 midnight.
Another disturbing feature is that 3 million tons of coal were imported in the first three months of this year. Twelve million tons would be imported in one year, meaning the loss of 20,000 jobs

in our coal fields, thus increasing the unemployment spiral.
We shall have to rely more and more, as the fossil fuels run out, on nuclear energy. There are grave dangers in this. We have not mastered the pollution resulting from the production of nuclear energy. We are not able to dispose of the waste products. Our Magnox programme was much too large: too many millions of £s were spent for too little return. The gas-cooled reactors are not coming up to scratch as quickly as expected. Yet the fast breeder reactors are the power stations of the future.
Unemployment is highest in those regions of this country which rely on the coal industry. The pockets of unemployment total 12·8 per cent. in Hems worth and 11 per cent. in Thorne. Unemployment is higher in the coalfaces of Yorkshire and South Wales.
On Friday, 30th June, 1972, the Minister said:
I emphasise that energy policy is under continuous review.
Thank God for that!
Energy prospects have to be kept in mind by the Secretary of State when coming to decisions in this context, not with reference only to the gas industry but generally."—[OIFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 1926.]
We want the policy to be kept generally under review. We want the framework of the policy to be set out clearly within guidelines everybody can understand.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Would my hon. Friend not agree that, unfortunately, this energy problem has been kept under constant review and has up until now had a catastrophic effect on the coal industry, because the words "energy policy is under constant review" have meant "How many more pits shall we close?

Mr. Harper: We have had experience of that. The time is coming when we shall not have to close any more pits or we shall be in dire trouble.
The Chairman of the National Coal Board, Mr. Derek Ezra, has given figures for the energy used in 1971 and projections for the next eight years. The total energy used in 1971 was 330 million tons of coal equivalent, comprised of hydro nuclear 12 million tons; North Sea gas 24 million tons; North Sea oil as yet


unexploited; coal 140 million tons; imported oil 154 million tons.
The figure of the National Coal Board projected for 1980 is 440 million tons. Possibly that is a slight understatement especially since we have got the economy moving at the rate of 5 per cent. a year, so one can add a little bit on to that figure.
The National Coal Board's estimate is that hydro nuclear will go from 12 million to 40 million tons, North Sea gas from 24 million to 70 million tons; North Sea oil, which is not there at present, will be 80 million tons; and the figure in respect of coal is unchanged. We are not asking that the coal industry should be expanded. We are asking the Government to make a declaration that the coal industry will not be run down any more and that the figure will remain at 140 million tons.
The nub of this set of figures is "imported oil" standing at 154 million tons. That should be whittled down with little ceremony to 100 million. That is a more realistic appraisal than any I have so far heard. The whole fetish that high wages in an industry leads to absenteeism and loss of productivity has been discarded since Wilberforce. Thank God for Wilberforce! In the coal industry high wages have led to less absenteeism and increased productivity. We want a high-wage low-cost economy. That will solve all our problems.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I do not entirely share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper), who deplored the absence from the benches opposite of those who normally take part in fuel debates. I think it is a mercy that we are spared that procession of tired, worn-out party hacks trying to speak about the coal industry from a theoretical knowledge and looking extremely scanty against the powerful array of practical experience on this side. It is a pity that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) about the thinness of the benches opposite last Friday have only been countered by the trotting out of the payroll vote. We have had a 100 per cent. improvement on the attendance of Friday but only by

producing those already in Government service.
Although I was not on the Committee of this Bill I have become extremely interested in it and I am anxious to help the Minister. In Committee in the Industry Bill we have an understanding with the Government—because we are interested in trying to expedite the Bill—that the Minister if he can helpfully intervene at an early stage does so and thus truncates the debate. I am sure my hon. Friends would not oppose the Minister doing the same if he were able to accept our Amendment.

Mr. Emery: I have already spoken. I was the second speaker on the Amendment.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Would my hon. Friend agree that that does not absolve the Minister, having read from his brief and then listened to the valuable debate, from coming to the conclusion that his brief was not a good one?

Mr. Cocks: I take my hon. Friend's point. The Minister will be a better Minister for the few remarks I am about to make. I am a little alarmed at some of the assumptions which have been made in the debate because I think we are suffering from thinking in terms of our own life span. Because we only live on this earth, if we are lucky, for 60 or 70 years we regard periods of 25 to 30 years as being so far in the distance that we do not need to think beyond them.
The greatness of this country has been built up on the use of fossil fuels, which have been very slow in formation. Hon. Members know that the coal measures were formed during the carboniferous period, a process extending for tens of millions of years, with the slow decay of vegetation falling into swamps, a process paralleled today only at the mouth of the Amazon and similar large rivers flowing into the sea. We are using up extremely quickly things which have taken in some cases 50 to 100 million years to form.
The Continental Shelf is very limited in area. It is important to remember this. We must also remember, if we are thinking of finding fresh resources spreading out from the land masses, that the


deep oceans are of a different structure and are not composed of the sedimentary rocks which are to be found on the Continental Shelf. Even on the 100 fathom mark there is a definite limit to the extent of resources which can be discovered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) mentioned the growing expectations of the rest of the world. There is already an appreciation that it is better to use up indigenous fuels in the country of origin and to get the full benefit from them, because they are worth much more when they have been processed—they result in a number of by-products—than export them crude and get the income from them. This is seen not only in newly developing countries, but also in microcosm in the United States where there is a growing feeling around the Gulf of Mexico in States such as Texas that it is better to develop their own petro-chemical industries and associated by-products than to continue to export fuel to the north-east of the United States and then be denuded in the coming years.
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), projecting into the future, said that there will be plenty of coal. That interesting remark showed the way in which the Tory Party takes the mining industry for granted. The attitude is, "Never mind if oil and natural gas become scarce. There is always coal. Never mind how we treat the miners in the meantime and kick them in the face over their legitimate claims. We can always turn to them in our hour of need." This attitude will come home to roost.
The Amendment is so unexceptionable that I find no difficulty about it. The whole trouble about the Tory Party and its approach to a national fuel policy is the persistent campaign which the Tory Party has conducted against the whole concept of nationalisation for its own petty, spiteful party ends. It now finds it very difficult to embrace the necessity to plan our fuel and energy resources and to make projections.
On Friday my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central and others spoke of the clear-cut philosophical difference between the two sides on the question of fuel policy. This is, in a way, a good thing, because I believe that the more that hon. Members opposite, and in particular the Minister, think about the

whole question of fuel policy and the need to plan, the more they will realise how inexorably natural events and resources available are pushing us towards a socialist solution.
It is with pleasure that I support the Amendment and urge it on the Minister. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will agree that, should the Minister wish to intervene at an earlier stage on future Amendments, he will be very welcome and it will expedite our proceedings.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. John Golding: I hope that the discovery of natural gas in the North Sea does not lead the Government to a policy of shutting down the pits too quickly. Many of my mining constituents believe that the greatest mistake of the Labour Government was to shut too many pits too quickly. We are debating fuel policy to night against the growing problem of unemployment and insecurity in coal mining and in industry generally. In my constituency there are three pits, one of which in the village of Silverdale is breaking world production records. We shall get increasing coal production only if the miners can look to the future with some degree of security
Perhaps we should not trust the Government too far in formulating a fuel policy. Following the great success of the miners' strike the lesson learnt at Saltley Gas Works, the Government are under great pressure to act vindictively against the miners. We have read recently that we should rely less on coal because of the success of the miners' strike. Yet it would be hard to find any members of the community who have been so loyal as the miners. Those of us who are trade union officials in other industries wonder why the miners did not exploit their strength in the immediate post-war period to get the highest wage levels, and why they did not use their collective strength to exploit the introduction of mechanisation in the pits. From outside one can only wonder at the loyalty and dedication of the miners to the country in putting up with the pre-Wilberforce pay and conditions.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) on one point. I do not think Wilberforce went far enough. I still regard the miners


as one of the worst paid sections of the community. We must follow a fuel policy which provides steady employment for the miners at the highest possible pay. That means using indigenous fuels.
Members of the Conservative Party during and after the miners' strike raised the issue of loyalty. Whom do the people of the country trust? Do they trust the sheikhs who control the oil in the Middle Eastern countries or the coal miners of this country? There can be no doubt of the answer. The loyalty of the miners cannot be in doubt. The sheikhs owe us nothing, and there are many reasons for distrusting them. We should avoid any over-dependence on oil not only because we cannot rely upon the sheikhs politically but also because we know that the reserves of oil are restricted in any event. Despite the vast new resources of Alaska, America is being driven to import oil which, of necessity, will increase prices considerably.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this country has used oil as a source of tax revenue and, therefore, that the cost to us is much greater than that paid to the sheikhs?

Mr. Golding: That is true. It can be argued that, especially in those countries where the oil is State-owned, one has to take into account not only the tax revenue but the vast profits of the international oil companies when making any comparison. But, given that the fuel is controlled in so many countries by small ruling cliques, I prefer to trust Britain's miners to provide our fuel rather than the sheikhs of Middle Eastern countries. When the crunch comes, Britain's miners as a whole will remain as loyal as they have always been.
I share the opinions of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract about what he describes as "fast breeders". I believe that fast breeding can lead to accelerating costs, as many economists have pointed out. Perhaps not entirely unrelated is the question of pollution, which has not been solved entirely.
The Amendment refers to co-ordination. There is an argument not only for national co-ordination on a large scale but for co-ordination on a more personal, domestic scale. In the last

week, I have received a letter which considers with care the use of natural gas. The writer was impressed by my argument about the hazards that natural gas presents in that it leaks from pipes. It has been shown to me that it might be most useful for natural gas to be fed into electricity generating stations and for electricity to be produced from it, rather than for natural gas to be used domestically.
Questions should be asked about the provision of heating facilities on new housing estates. When I was looking for a house in my constituency, I was disturbed by the difficulty which I encountered when it came to the fuel of my choice. The gas authority seemed to have a very cosy relationship with the builders. I found it easy to get gas warm-air central heating, but very difficult to get electric central heating. I wanted the latter because that would have been produced from the coal mined in my own and neighbouring constituencies. There may be an argument for taking a closer look at this problem of heating housing estates.
What is more, when we talk of national fuel policies, it is time that the Government took district heating seriously, whether it be from coal, from electricity or even from North Sea gas. It seems to me that we are using our fuels very wastefully at present; that, given that we are building our housing in estates, building them together connected by many common services, it is an absurdity that we have no overall policy for heating those estates and that there is a hotch-potch arrangement which, when looked at carefully, is uneconomic. I shall not pursue this point, of fuel policy, because later I want to speak at greater length on the question of safety.
From many in the coal mining, electricity generating, and gas industries, there is a growing demand that there should be a fuel policy resting upon the use of indigenous fuels which will provide security not only for the men of the coal industry but for the men of other industries.

Mr. Skinner: I did not intend to speak in this debate. I thought it was about the Gas Bill. I wandered into the place, and it became obvious after a relatively


short time that I had better look at the Amendment to see what this caper was about, and it was soon obvious that we were dealing with the most important matter of all, the coal mining industry and the development of a national fuel policy. We have heard all that before, have we not? I used to hear it a lot in the coalfields before I became a Member of Parliament.
I shall take up a point made earlier and then other points made by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite who have left. First, I would comment on a point made about Wilberforce.
There is no truth in the report that Wilberforce is now an honorary member of the NUM, but my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) seemed to give the impression that Wilberforce was chiefly responsible for the wage increases which miners got at the beginning of the year. We must dispute that, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept that the people who got the rise were the fellows on the picket lines, and to some extent the wives and families back home who were ensuring the great solidarity in the communities. Wilberforce was merely the agent of the Government who, at a given point in time, had to acknowledge that the miners were in such a powerful position and that the country recognised it needed coal and probably also recognised the need for a fuel policy not dissimilar from this Amendment. It was then that Lord Wilberforce was found, with two colleagues, and he had to provide or recommend a sum of money. He was the mathematician in the scenario; he was the fellow who on that Friday had to come up with a sum of money which might be suitable for the miners to accept. After they had been to Downing Street, possibly to argue about a fuel policy as well, our friend, the Minister's right hon. Friend, had to find another £8 million. He has never recovered from it. He never will. It will naturally result in him losing his job whenever the General Election takes place. It was the most signal event in the whole period of this Government. It meant that various other people were able to tackle the Government and the Prime Minister, not in the same way as the miners, but in the full knowledge that he could be brought down.
12.30 a.m.
So Wilberforce played his part, but no more a part than that he happened to be found at a particular moment to act as the Government's agent in recommending a sum of money which would get the miners back to work. It may be that in a properly co-ordinated fuel policy there would need to be several more Wilberforces to recommend various other sums of money to see that the coal industry thrived continually.

Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend suggests that there might need to be several more Wilberforces. Should he not be saying that there ought to be no need for any more Wilberforces? At his union's annual conference yesterday the point was made by the miners that they are not satisfied with present wage levels, and it should be a matter of simple negotiation with the National Coal Board, with no Government or Wilberforce intervention, so that all miners receive a proper and appropriate rate of pay.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is an idealist. I accept that he feels that way. His emotions carry him to these conclusions. But I tend to keep my feet a little closer to the ground. Notwithstanding that some of us may be on the Government benches on a future occasion, I am realistic enough to know that there may be an impasse and it will be necessary to find some studious gentleman who can recommend a sum to get a Government, of whatever political persuasion, out of a difficulty.
I agree that certain decisions which will take place at Morecambe this week are of tremendous importance to the miners. Of course they are. They took an important decision today—I do not know whether my hon. Friend is fully aware of it—which would be important in the formulation of a co-ordinated fuel policy, as suggested in the Amendment. I need to keep mentioning that to stay in order.
This morning there was a co-ordinated, composite wage claim which suggested that about £40 a week for coal face workers and £30 a week for surface workers would be the only solution in the present situation to provide the miners with a reasonable wage.

Mr. Golding: For the record, I should point out to my hon. Friend that when I talked about the events of yesterday,


it being half-past midnight, I was talking about the events to which he is referring in terms of today.

Mr. Skinner: Yes. I understand the position now. It certainly was yesterday. Today, for instance, they will be talking about something completely different which will have an important effect on a national fuel policy as it affects the miners. They will be talking about entitlements for shift payments for social hours working. That is very important. The suggestion is 25 per cent. for working an afternoon shift, 33 per cent. for working a night shift, and various matters of that kind.
Today they will no doubt be discussing a better pension for retired miners instead of the miserable 30s. they now receive. You appear to be getting restless, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to establish is that, without a proper wage system inside the coal industry, the co-ordinated fuel policy recommended in the Amendment would carry very little weight indeed. I want the Amendment not only to be accepted by the Government, but to be realistic when it has been accepted. That is important. We need this properly organised wage structure not merely for the miners who are in the industry now but for those who will in due course retire.
That is where I came to the point about the pension. We are talking about giving security to those 57-and 58-year-old miners now in the industry who are anxious to know what kind of pensions they will receive, and therefore at More-cambe this week they are discussing that and other matters. They have listened, too, to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who had some worthwhile things to say about the coal industry. He probably said some other things with which I do not wholly agree, but that does not matter too much. Certainly the upgrading of pensions from the present miserable level of £1·50 is important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sorry to intervene, but I must ask the hon. Member to try to keep to the issue of the co-ordination of fuel supplies.

Mr. Skinner: I think that it would be taking things to a ridiculous length to quote example after example of the

things that are necessary to improve the attitude of the miners. I have given three examples—extra payment for social hours, extra pensions and thus extra security and extra wages. Perhaps those matters make the point.
Too much emphasis should not be placed on what was said on the first day of the miners' conference by the president of the union. In my view what he said was wrongly interpreted. He is reported as having told the miners to "cool it". It is important to get it on the record that yesterday the general secretary said something quite different. He told the conference that moderation in the pursuit of wage claims does not solve the problem of providing justice for the miners.
I hope it is fully understood that in the lifetime of this Parliament we have not had a proper opportunity to debate a properly co-ordinated fuel policy and therefore, even though the hour is late, it is as well for my views and those of my hon. Friends to be put on record. It is not my fault that we are discussing the Gas Bill and an Amendment calling for a co-ordinated fuel policy. I assume that the Chair had something to do with the selection of the Amendment. That being so, it is necessary to say a few things about it.
I see that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is present in his new capacity as PPS to the new Minister for Industry. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a few miners in his constituency. Bearing in mind the many things that he has said about the miners, I hope that he will speak in support of the Amendment, or perhaps whisper in his hon. Friend's ear that it would be a good thing if he were to accept it. If the hon. Gentleman were to do that, I should immediately sit down.
I came into the Chamber thinking that we were to debate the Gas Bill, but the Chair deemed it advisable to select an Amendment calling for a co-ordinated fuel policy, and it was suggested that it was necessary for us to say a few things about the need for such a policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), in a powerful speech, talked about the reserves of coal. I do net want to repeat the old arguments. He made the case very well indeed.


But it is necessary to reiterate briefly the fact that we have these large-scale reserves. They are mainly in the Nottinghamshire coalfield. I am told that there are also some underneath Oxford which a future Labour Government might exploit—although I am not sure that that would gain many floating votes. Nevertheless, in the Nottinghamshire coalfield there are vast untapped reserves. Anyone in his right mind would accept that if there is 30 years' working of coal—that is the kind of figure being quoted—we ought to be more concerned with a properly co-ordinated fuel policy.
I am told by some of my hon. Friends who are very well informed about North Sea gas that possibly we have only 20 to 25 years supply of North Sea gas at the present rate of exploitation. Therefore, I agree fully with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, who knows the Nottinghamshire coalfield like the back of his hand, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). In view of these massive reserves, it is extremely important to see that we do not run down the coal industry any more than we are doing at present.
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), who has left the Chamber, referred to the 1967 White Paper. Although perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield may have dealt with this matter, it should be pointed out that that White Paper did not get around a great deal in the House. It was suggested that it was an important document. For a while it seemed as though it would be the backbone of a new policy. But because of the close attention paid to it by some of my hon. Friends, Dick Marsh had to do something with it. As far as I am aware, it remains in the pigeon hole into which Dick Marsh put it in 1967.
My hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) referred to the question of the nationalised industries. During the 20 years or more since nationalisation, when the miners have been arguing for the kind of national fuel policy being put forward tonight, the miners were having the national interest rammed down their throats. They were told "Look after the national interest, and do not rock the boat." The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is not so much concerned about the national interest. He talks about it a

great deal, but he is not concerned about it when he is trotting off to see Pompidou and taking notice of him. When Pompidou says, as he did yesterday, that if we continue to float the £ we can keep out of the Common Market——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing about £s in the Amendment.

Mr. Skinner: I was getting at the floating £, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is very important to a co-ordinated fuel policy. With a co-ordinated fuel policy, my hon. Friends and I would take every possible opportunity to see that the amount of coal that was imported, whether from EEC countries or elsewhere, was as low as possible. It could not be stopped inside the EEC, although when the Opposition become the Government all that will be ended because we shall renegotiate the whole matter. The French will not like that. They will say that we must be out.
If the £ continues to fall or rise in value according to the way it is treated by speculators in Britain and abroad, that will affect the price of the coal we import. At present the average cost is about £12 per ton and imports are running at an average rate of 12 million tons a year. We are paying about £150 million for imported coal. That is where the floating £ is important in the total arithmetic, because it will affect the balance of payments.
It is necessary to explain the kind of things which would arise if we had a co-ordinated fuel policy, which will mean as low an intake of coal imports as can be justified while we are in the EEC, and when we are outside the EEC, as we shall be when the Labour Party is in government—I do not think I am being too idealistic—it will be back to nothing, as it was for many years after 1959 when the coal stocks were about 40 million tons.

12.45 a.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) mentioned the nuclear programme and touched on the question of pollution. The other week I read a book produced by a Government working party called "Nuisance or Nemesis". It is not my usual type of bedside reading, but I got round to looking at it. Since


it was the responsibility of the do-gooding Secretary of State for the Environment, who trots round the world espousing all the good Liberal causes—we can see what he is after—while leaving the despicable matters to the Minister for Housing——

Mr. Michael Cocks: Apart from the dirty work done on the Housing Finance Bill, there is the deplorable carve-up on the Local Government Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has hived off to another junior Minister.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentle man has been very clever and crafty in the way that he has gone about his busi ness, and his visit to Stockholm——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Gentleman had better go into that matter. He had better keep very closely to the Amendment and not try my patience too much.

Mr. Skinner: That is the last thing I would want to do, Sir Robert, because my patience reaches a low ebb sometimes, too.
In the book "Nuisance or Nemesis", which was compiled by a Government working party consisting of responsible people—I cannot remember all the names, but the members included the Master of Clare College, Cambridge, and two or three other odd bods—it was said——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman quotes the book, will he assure me that it is concerned with the co-ordination of fuel, because, if it is not, it is out of order?

Mr. Skinner: I shall be very careful to ensure that even if it takes a long time I shall get round to the point, which will be extremely relevant——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It must not take all that long, otherwise I shall have to ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Skinner: I appreciate that, Sir Robert: The books "Nuisance or Nemesis", which was sent to Stockholm for the people involved with pollution matters to discuss, stated:
The price of electricity: radiation"—

that was the sub-title of this passage in the book—
This rapid and drastic increase in the number of nuclear reactors is bound to lead to an increase in the global level of radio activity unless additional precautions are taken. These precautions will be expensive, will put up the price of electricity and are therefore likely to be resisted.
The whole of the paragraph laid stress on the fact that there were hidden dangers in storing nuclear waste, and the professors on the working party and other people of informed opinion have not been able to discover ways of getting rid of the nuclear waste. That is an additional reason why it is necessary to have a co-ordinated fuel policy as described in the Amendment. It was not until I read that book that I realised how relevant were some of the arguments I had heard before. I had paid only scant attention in the past to the nuclear energy argument, but it became clear in that book what an important matter that was.
The Industry Bill is at present in Committee. It is the Government's answer to the lame duck philosophy. I am informed that unless CBI pressures are so great that Clause 8 of that Bill is drastically changed about £550 million will be allocated to private industry willy-nilly. We have reason to believe that Mr. Campbell Adamson of the CBI is not very happy about that state of affairs. He wants Clause 8 abolished, and I can understand his reasons. There are many of them. But if £550 million can be paid out to private industry by the Minister for Industry, with a nod and a wink here and a £25 million handout there, surely it is important to have a co-ordinated fuel policy where nationalised industries can have the same opportunity to use some of that money.
In 1968 the TUC Economic Review spelt it out in more detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield knows the argument well. I do not want to go into it tonight. It is getting late and I might upset your patience, Sir Robert. But it would not be enough for a co-ordinated fuel policy to allocate 20 million tons of coal equivalent for one sector of the energy market, 50 million tons of coal equivalent to another and 50 million tons for the coal industry. A properly co-ordinated fuel policy would


have to contain built-in advantages for the nationalised industries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) expects the nationalisation of the oil industry to take place early on in the lifetime of the next Labour Government. But we would not be in the position to take it over immediately. There are other problems. We must get rid of the Industrial Relations Act and the Housing Finance Act. You name them, Sir Robert, and we must get rid of them. It could be a while at least before we got round to nationalising the oil industry. Not all my hon. and right hon. Friends would agree with my strategy for nationalisation. I would suggest a one-clause Bill with First Reading, Second Reading, Committee stage and the rest all done in 24 hours with the Bill sent to the House of Lords and quickly brought back, as we did with the Bill dealing with Rolls-Royce. That I would agree with totally, as would some of my hon. Friends. But it might not happen, because our Labour Government might look at the matter a little differently. They might want to adopt a more moral posture, giving everybody a chance to criticise and put his point of view. I hope they do not. I hope they go straight in.
I do not want to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, but we may have difficulties in this co-ordinated fuel policy over the first three months. We should have to have some sort of palliative in order to see that the oil industry did not take too strong a hold within a co-ordinated national fuel policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) and I met last Monday one of the Ministers of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Minister for Local Government and Development, who was the chairman of the meeting but said very little. We met them at the Department of the Environment, in Marsham Street, in a very plush office, to discuss the question of intermediate status for parts of my constituency, the major part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East and all of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. We

have been arguing the matter for two or three years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for too long about intermediate status. He must get back to co-ordination at once.

Mr. Skinner: When I have developed this argument, Sir Robert——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will not have it developed. I want to get back straight away to co-ordination.

Mr. Skinner: It is extremely difficult. If I can give you a general impression, Sir Robert, of why we were there and then develop the argument I think you will fully understand. We wanted intermediate status for a mining area. Everyone will accept that most of the problems in the regional and development areas are consistent with mining areas, consistent with the fact that successive Governments have been responsible for the closure of pits. The point is well taken. The Hunt Committee, set up to look at the problem when the Labour Government were in power in the middle 1960s, dwelt in the main on the mining areas, to establish some sort of intermediate range of regional development status for areas then not development areas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is too long in getting back to co-ordination. He must not stretch my patience unduly. I am quite serious. Unless the hon. Gentleman tries to play the game by me, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Skinner: It will not be the first time, Sir Robert.
The point I wanted to make was that we were at the meeting because pits had been closing. That is why we have been there on several occasions, arguing the toss as to whether we could get intermediate status for North Derbyshire, including Chesterfield and the surrounding district, because pits had been closed under a co-ordinated fuel policy. We hope that will not occur in the future, and that we shall not be trotting along to try to get some industry into that area to offset the loss of jobs as a result of the pit closures.
The point I am trying to establish is essential to the discussion. It must not be a question of solving the problem


after it has happened. I am suggesting that with a properly co-ordinated fuel policy there would be no argument about going to the Department of the Environment or the Department of Trade and Industry to try to get other jobs after the pits had been shut.
When a pit has been shut, there are 700 men unemployed who were once in a hole in the ground. There needs to be a great deal of acreage of industrial development to employ those 700 men—certainly a lot more than a hole in the ground and a few working places at the pit top. With a properly co-ordinated fuel policy there would be no need to argue the point. It was made clear by the representatives, including the Duke of Rutland, that they were concerned about future pit closures.
Some of my hon. Friends were giving the impression that now we are in a different situation in the coal industry, but the situation is not much different from what it was two or three years ago. Last year we were told, and again at the beginning of this year when the strike took place, that there were 32 million tons of coal on the ground in stocks. That assertion was proved to be false. But next winter, unless some alteration is made and there is a properly co-ordinated fuel policy, there will be 32 million tons of coal on the ground. That is exactly what the Government are about. They are importing coal which they do not need at the rate of 12 million tons a year, at twice the cost of British coal. This is a deliberate plan to build up the stocks so that they will be in a more powerful position and the miners will be in a less powerful position when the next round of wage talks take place. That is why a fuel policy is important.
Even if we have a fuel policy, there will have to be continued growth in the economy. A co-ordinated fuel policy would not continue for long unless there was growth. One of the main reasons for pit closures is the stop in the economy. With the recession, there have been pit closures. If a few thousand car workers, for example, are thrown out of work, within six months, if there are different tax arrangements, the boom can commence and some of those workers, or perhaps all of them, can start work again in the same factories. But when there is a recession in the coal industry, pits

must close to take account of the slack, and they never reopen.
Therefore, there must be a co-ordinated fuel policy allied to continued growth in the economy. I hope that hon. Members opposite will take note of the arguments, notwithstanding the fact that they relate to an Amendment to the Gas Bill. It is important that they should do so if we are going to look after the nationalised industries, of which I believe the coal industry is the most important. We must have a co-ordinated fuel policy.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Palmer.

Mr. Ronald Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been waiting patiently to make my contribution to the discussion, which is now being truncated. The Government Chief Whip is putting a guillotine on everything. It is outrageous that, this Bill having been put on tonight, those of us prepared to stay for it should be frustrated. The Government Chief Whip is behaving like a little Fascist.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the situation as far as I am concerned. If a Front Bench Member gets up to speak, it is the custom of the Chair to call him.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill and I have sat here for many hours——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is nothing further that can be said to the point of order. I am anxious not to waste the time of the House. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) has risen to speak and I have no option, under the custom of the House, but to call him.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) may have risen, but, clearly, he could not have seen me rising to my feet at the same time. I have been rising to speak a number of times. If my hon. Friend feels that he did not observe me rising, perhaps he is now giving way to me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not see any sign of that.

Mr. Garrett: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you to reconsider——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid I cannot do that. I am sorry.

Mr. Garrett: The mere fact that my hon. Friend wants to go home does not mean that we do.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: My intervention at this stage does not close the debate. We are on Report.
My hon. Friends have covered the question of a co-ordinated fuel policy very thoroughly. It is a great pity that we have not had more contributions from hon. Members opposite in view of the importance of the subject. The Under-secretary of State on Friday said that this debate could be the coat hanger on which a general discussion of fuel policy could hang.
Although there has been a general debate on fuel policy, the Amendment stands in its own right in a Bill which deals only with one fuel industry, but there is indeed an argument for saying that a similar provision should be included in every Bill dealing with fuel industries. The case for it is three-fold. First, it would be a safeguard against wasteful capital expenditure in the gas industry; secondly, it would emphasise the general need for the conservation of fuel resources; thirdly, it Would strengthen the Minister's hand in his general obligation under the 1944 Act to co-ordinate fuel and energy supplies.
The principal argument is that the massive development of natural gas is part of the new organisation of the gas industry. Perhaps under the new Gas Corporation the industry will develop an ever-increasing appetite for capital. Up to 1965 there was an average capital expenditure by the gas industry of £60 million per year. It is now running at £300 million per year. There is no guarantee that there will be any return on that expenditure. The new expenditure of the gas industry is being met by huge increases in borrowings. As a result the self-financing ratio of the gas industry has fallen, in a few years, from 41 per cent. self-financing three or four years ago to 25 per cent. last year.
It is worth comparing that poor return with the figures being achieved still in

the nationalised electricity supply industry. It would be much nearer 50 per cent. than the low figure being maintained now by the gas industry.
Looking to new borrowing, the future costs of the gas industry will be tremendous. The industry is now paying 9½ per cent. to the Treasury. On foreign borrowings the figure is running at between 8 and 8½ per cent. There will be a great deal of old stock coming up for redemption very soon, on which the outstanding capital debt has now risen to about 6¼ per cent.
If the gas industry is going to be financially solvent under the new circumstances a very much higher level of profitability will have to be achieved.
It is reasonable that we should not spend money on such an enormous scale in the gas industry whilst finding ourselves with under-used assets in the other fuel industries, including the coal industry. That might come about because no proper balance has been struck between capital claims of the various fuel industries. There is no proper co-ordination. It would be useful to set a proper and realistic overall target of return for the gas industry for the future. It should be at least 7 per cent. If that were achieved there would be some check on wasteful capital expenditure. It is important that all primary energy sources should advance together. I do not take the view that the nuclear power industry is one that is not of great advantage to the country. It is of great advantage. It is a great employer of labour.
The time will come when the fossil fuels of the country and the world are exhausted. No one can say exactly when this will happen but, working on a normal compound calculation of 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. per annum, it is likely that fossil fuel resources of all kinds will be exhausted by perhaps the turn of the century. Under those circumstances, unless the industrial civilisation we know, with all its faults and some of its merits, is to collapse we will obviously have to look for some other primary source of energy.
1.15 a.m.
As far as can be seen nuclear fission, or perhaps by that time nuclear fusion, will be the only available source on any large scale. I have never argued that the


development of nuclear energy should take place at the expense of the coal industry. That does not mean that there is not still in this country, as in other advanced industrial countries where coal is available, a future for the industry. If we are to resume the industrial prosperity that can come about only when we have a change of Government, there will be a massive demand for energy all round and every primary source can be used.
I am glad in this connection to have the approval of no less an authority, and in some respects it is a surprising one, than Sir David Barran, Chairman of Shell Transport and Trading Co., when he was speaking in April to the West Yorkshire region of the Economic League. I do not know whether that league is to the left or right of the Monday Club but it is certainly very anti-Socialist. Apparently the gentlemen of this branch brought along Sir David Barran because they thought he would absolutely condemn the coal industry as a source of energy, following the experience of the miners' strike. The gentleman responsible for sending out the notice convening the meeting used these words, and they will be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner):
The disastrous results of the recent miners' strike, placing as it did a virtual stranglehold upon the nation's source of power, brought industry virtually to a halt. The country cannot afford to be placed in a similar situation again …
The members of the league must have been very disappointed at the way their guest repaid them.
What Sir David Barran says is of the greatest interest and comfort to the coal industry and my hon. Friends. I content myself with one quotation. He said:
In the light of these figures"—
he had given figures which we must accept. We cannot argue about figures; we can argue about the interpretation to be placed upon them. He went on to say:
my priorities if I were framing a national fuel policy would be these: wherever coal can be economically produced it should be. Every effort should be made to help nuclear energy to become more efficient and more economical, thus hastening the day when it can take over a larger share of the energy burden—although I do not think this can happen until well into the 1980s.

My view is that the date would be much further into the future than that. He went on to argue that we must reduce wastage in fuel consumption and recognise fuel as a scarce resource to be used more efficiently.
Sir David made this powerful point:
The maximum effort should be made to ensure the optimum development of all indigenous resources—oil and natural gas around our shores, coal and nuclear energy—while recognising that as far as oil is concerned we cannot avoid substantial dependence on imported supplies for many years".
Obviously Sir David is not happy, any more than the rest of us are happy, about overdue dependence on imported supplies.
After inviting this guest to their gathering, these reactionaries of the Economic League must have been very disappointed. Sir David is an eloquent witness to the strength of our argument.
I turn to question of conservation of resources. The argument I have used so far has been about the financial viability of the gas industry, which must be considered in relation to the financial viability of the other fuel industries. There is an equal need for a fiscal economy in the use of fossil resources, because once Nature's store cupboard has been depleted—there is a point of depletion in the long run—there is no way of filling it easily again.
For the gas industry, which in future will be marketing almost entirely natural gas, the rate of exploitation is obviously of the greatest importance. It will be necessary to strike a balance between bringing in natural gas too fast, which can upset the proper balance of the associated fuel industries, and bringing it in too slowly, resulting in an insufficient return on capital invested. The question of conservation is much in support of the Amendment.
My third argument for the Amendment is that it would strengthen the Minister's hand, because since 1944, starting with the first Ministry of Fuel and Power, continuing into the Ministry of Power and now into the Department of Trade and Industry, the responsible Minister has had a general duty of co-ordinating all the fuel and power industries. I think that the Minister's general duty of co-ordination goes beyond the nationalised industries as such and


reaches into the privately-owned industries, including the oil industry.
When I made inquiries at the Ministry recently, I was told that, surprising as it may seem, there is no overall census or record of Britain's total energy resources. I had great difficulty in obtaining the figure for the amount of electric power which is generated privately, even though the industry has been nationalised for 25 years. I believe the figure to be about 20 per cent. There is no overall census of energy resources available, and it is important that that should be obtained.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) dealt eloquently with the total heat and energy concept. There is no consultation under the supervision of the Ministry about the organisation of energy supplies in relation to a particular geographical area. There is no understanding of how to obtain a proper mix of fuel resources.
Although it is hard for me as an electric power supply man to admit this, I suggest that, for instance, when a new town or a new estate is being developed, instead of bringing in electricity through an extra high voltage line, with the transmission losses that go with it, it might pay, if we had proper planning of fuel resources, to bring in natural gas by pipeline—there have been systems for bringing in coal in pulverised form by pipeline—and generate the electrical energy at the other end for power and lighting, the heat from the gas line being used directly.
The Amendment has made it possible for us to have a discussion at great length and breadth on the national fuel policy. Those of us who have worked so hard on the Bill argue that the Amendment stands up in its own right.
I will quote a few sentences from the 1967 White Paper "Fuel Policy". Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover I have had many doubts about that White Paper. A great deal of effort went into drawing it up, but unfortunately it has proved to be woefully inaccurate in its predictions——

Mr. Skeet: If it is useless, why quote from it?

Mr. Palmer: It would be a novel departure if objection were taken to my

making selected quotations. It is normal practice and the hon. Gentleman is sometimes rather good at it himself. I quote from paragraph 136 in Chapter 9 headed "Conclusion":
The concentration in the White Paper on primary energy reflects its dominating importance for fuel policy as a result of recent developments. The magnitude of these developments highlights the need to think of fuel policy as an evolving subject, requiring constant review and susceptible to continuous adjustment. This need arises not only from change within the energy sector itself but also from the impact of broader economic and social circumstances, themselves liable to change. In their continuing review of fuel policy the Government's aim will be to make possible the supply of energy at the lowest total cost to the community having regard to the whole range of relevant considerations —economic and social—and to national and regional economic policies.
The Amendment asks that that sound sentiment should be written into the legislation.
I emphasise again what I said in the first place. When at any stage this House considers fuel and power legislation, be it for the gas industry, the electricity supply industry or the oil industry, the legislation should stipulate that those responsible for the administration of the industry concerned should not act on their own as if they lived in an isolated world but should relate what they do in their industry to what everyone else is doing in every other fuel industry.
Therefore I suggest that there is a strong case for the Amendment, which has been put forward in a constructive spirit. I hope that the Government will accept it.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Emery: I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that we have had a reasonable span of debate on this Amendment, and I accept immediately that a number of points have been put forward by hon. Members with specific constituency interests concerned with coal. All have argued very reasonably and sensibly the considerable rôle that the coal industry has to play in a coordinated fuel policy. This should be taken into account when we are dealing with any of the fuel industries.
I came to this debate fresh from six hours of debate on the European Communities Bill. I began to feel that we were still discussing the EEC when the


hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Con-cannon) said that we could not have settled the recent strike in the way we did if we had been in the EEC. I cannot see any ground for that argument. But I repeat that we accept the vital rôle of coal in a co-ordinated fuel policy.
I want to deal specifically with two points raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) about the ever-increasing appetite for capital expenditure in the gas industry. Perhaps he does not interpret this in its absolute sense, because the peak of expenditure on the gas system itself passed in the financial year 1967–68 and the conversion expenditure reached its peak in 1971–72. Expenditure should now begin to decline.
I have spoken already in this debate and I have little to add in principle——

Mr. Palmer: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's view that the gas industry had passed its peak of expenditure. That is not the view of a great many authorities outside the industry. If the industry concentrated on improving some of its system with a view to preventing leakages, that in itself would involve considerable capital expenditure.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman is too great an expert to compare that sort of expenditure with the massive capital expenditure factors in which we have had to deal on the system, the grid, and conversion.
I have tried to make a reasonable statement on the position of the coordinated fuel policy. I am encouraged to think that that might have been the case because, although it has been on record since Friday it has not been torn apart today.
I argued then, and I repeat it only because there is nothing further I have to say about it, that the Secretary of State has a general duty of
securing the effective and co-ordinated development of coal, petroleum and other minerals and sources of fuel and power in Great Britain…and of promoting economy and efficiency in the supply, distribution, use and consumption of fuel and power, whether produced in Great Britain or not".
Those duties are on the Secretary of State. They are the sort of assurances which hon. Members are seeking. The reason why I am suggesting that this

should not be written into the Bill as provided in the Amendment is that the Amendment applies to a specific aspect of the judgment which the Secretary of State has to make. The capital expenditure aspect is important, but there are a number of other aspects and, as I have pointed out, it is wrong to single it out of the Bill like this.
I hope that the Opposition having had their debate, and with the assurance I have been able to give, we might make progress.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is——

Mr. Ronald Brown: Mr. Ronald Brown rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ronald Brown.

Mr. Brown: I have sat here for three and a half hours waiting to be called.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member. I did not see him rise.

Mr. Brown: I want to say only a few words. The Minister's reply is disappointing. I did him the courtesy of rereading his speech on Friday. It was a poor effort because he did not address himself to the arguments and justify our withdrawing the Amendment.
The Minister referred on Friday, as reported at col. 1927 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, to the need for a careful balance of the considerations concerning the factors of relevance to the various forms of energy source. One would have expected him to have gone a little further in discussing this. He has the Vinter Report and could have discussed the information contained in it. He could have shown us how the various pieces of information contained in that report have been put together and where the balance lies in them.
The hon. Gentleman has shown complete disregard for the House in producing that report. I hope it will be possible at some stage to get a Minister or Mr. Vinter to come to the House or to a Select Committee to explain that report. It was outrageous of the Minister to take the view that he did not have to talk to us about it.
It may be difficult, as was outlined on Friday, for the Minister to make judgments on the various forms of energy source but, having regard to the vast capital investment in the gas industry, it seems to me that we should know what his judgments are based upon and not have him believe that his role as Minister is simply to try to get the Bill through without debate. The Minister's predecessor was sacked. Perhaps he will suffer the same fate himself, because his predecessor did not take much notice of the affairs of the House. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider these matters in the House.
On Friday the hon. Gentleman said that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wanted, in whatever way possible, to bring the House into his thinking. What the hon. Gentleman did on Friday and has done tonight scarcely honours that pledge by his right hon. Friend. He has taken no notice whatsoever of the debate. The House is entitled to know upon what basis our future fuel policy is based.
There have been arguments over the years not only about our fuel policy but about the fuel policy of the whole of Europe. The hon. Gentleman was with me at the Council of Europe in 1966 when we discussed with the Energy Committee our energy resources and where our financial investment should be put concerning future energy requirements. I expected him to have updated that information. I should expect any Government in this country to be in a position to say what their judgment was and how it had been made. The results of investments made between 1970 and 1975 will be seen in the period from 1980 to 1985. Therefore, for the Under-Secretary to say that his right hon. Friend can at any time make a judgment seems insufficient. I intend to support the Amendment. I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that his answer to the debate on this very serious Amendment was extremely disappointing.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: We have had a useful debate on the Amendment. Certainly my hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate have been able to let the Government know, that they are not satisfied with the way the country's energy policy is developing. Reading the signs, one imagines that there will be an energy crisis within the next decade if we continue to use our resources

at the present rate. Therefore, the Government have an obligation to tell us what their fuel policy is. At the moment they have no fuel policy. They are drifting from one situation to another.
I know it is difficult to set out in precise terms what each primary fuel's share should be within any energy policy, but it should be possible to move towards more co-ordination than we now have.
I doubt whether we can deal with a co-ordinated fuel policy on the basis of an Amendment to the Gas Bill. However, this has been a useful debate. We are not happy with the reply we have had from the Under-Secretary. We think he should have been more forthcoming on some of these matters. We shall certainly have to return to the subject when the opportunity arises.
In view of the debate, which has been extremely useful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

THE NATIONAL GAS CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL AND THE REGIONAL GAS CONSULTATIVE COUNCILS.

Mr. Varley: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 8, line 5, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the following Amendments:

No. 17, in line 7, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 18, in line 9, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 19, in line 14, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 20, in line 20, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 26, in Clause 48, page 39, line 22, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 27, in line 43, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 28, in Schedule 3, page 49, line 13, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 29, in page 50, line 19, leave out first 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 30, in line 19, leave out second 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 35, in Schedule 6, page 77, line 15, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 36, in line 16, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

Mr. Varley: These Amendments seek to delete the name "Consultative" and to put in its place "Consumers". This is not a pettifogging attempt to change the name of the consultative councils for the sake of it but is a real attempt to use a clearer word to show consumers of gas that when the new Gas Corporation is set up there will be consumer bodies at national, regional and local level specifically to help them.
1.45 a.m.
The House will be aware that under existing legislation there are consumer bodies for the gas industry, but it is generally accepted that these have not been as successful as they should be. First of all, I have to give good reasons why that is so and why I say that. Under the Gas Act, 1948, the consultative councils were set up in this way. The chairmen were ex officiomembers of the area boards. Other members were drawn from local authorities, commerce, industry, the trade unions and other bodies. Their terms of reference were extremely wide and since then their functions have been under close scrutiny.
In a recent issue of Public Enterprise it was said:
It is fair to say that the committees have on the whole primarily concerned themselves with seeking redress for individual consumer complaints rather than with the overall policy matters concerning their industry. In this they have been reasonably successful, though limited by restricted public knowledge of their role here. As proponents of an overall consumer viewpoint of their industries and as watchdogs in a wider sense, they can claim little success. Essentially they have acquired what has been called a 'small change' image.
What seems to emerge is that the public are not fully aware of the existence of the consultative councils or how they can help them. I think that this was confirmed in the evidence given to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in the last Session of Parliament

when the Committee considered the relations of nationalised industries with the public. In a memorandum submitted to the Select Committee, the Eastern Gas Consultative Council said this about public awareness of the consultative council:
It is a sad thing that after more than 21 years of existence the work of the Consultative Council is not more widely known to the gas consumers and some of the blame for this must rest with the Council. At the same time it is difficult to know how to get our existence across without expenditure which could not be justified. In all probability the vast majority of consumers will never need to approach us but this must not be used as an excuse and reasonable publicity must be maintained.
Not only must there be reasonable publicity, but proper terminology must be applied and the functions must be improved.
When the Bill was in Committee the Government went a considerable way, in response to an Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) and supported by the Opposition, towards trying to improve the functions and independent powers of the consultative councils. As a result, Schedule 3 was changed substantially and, I think, helpfully.
Under the Bill there will not be any cross-posting. Chairmen of consultative councils will not be serving as ex officiomembers of the new Gas Corporation. The councils will be able to employ staff and have the equipment and premises they want, and under these arrangements they can be much more independent or have a much more independent outlook.
I am not saying that the proposals are absolutely perfect. There is a strong body of opinion which says that ministerial appointments tend to hamper the work of the councils, but the changes made so far are positively useful and important. In our view the consultative councils should be more clearly established as the consumer's watchdog and it is for this reason that we want to name them consumer councils. There is confusion in the minds of the public about the role of the consultative councils. Some consumers think they refer to worker-employer relations and not to consumers.
I have the support of evidence given to the Select Committee on Nationalised


Industries by the late Professor Hanson, who submitted a long memorandum but made a specific point which support the Amendment. Under the heading "Changes within the System", he said:
There are certain things that could be usefully done within the present structure, without radical alteration. It could easily be ensured, for instance, that even though members of these bodies continued to be appointed by the Minister, in accordance with the terms of present legislation, their independence of the board which they advise should be emphasised. In some cases (e.g. gas and electricity) even a change of name might help. 'Consultative Council' is ambiguous—perhaps deliberately so. 'Consumer Council' would at least put the emphasis right. Is it accidental that, in its report, the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council appears, in general, to speak on behalf of the consumer with a much clearer voice than most of the Consultative Councils in gas and electricity?
Professor Hanson made a great study of these matters.
When these new bodies are set up under the Bill, which may be in 1973, we want the members who are appointed to show a real independence. Of course we want them to understand the problems of the gas industry and to show proper regard to those factors. We also want them to offer help to the new Gas Corporation. But above all we want the consumers' councils—as we hope they will become—to play an important part in winning public confidence in the nationalised industries.
Given the change of name as proposed m the Amendment, and given the changes already made in Committee, we feel that the people appointed to these new bodies in 1973 will be free of the restrictions placed upon them in the past and that they will be much better equipped to help the industry and the 13 million gas customers.
We hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. It would be useful to rename these bodies "consumer" bodies.

Mr. Emery: I thank the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) for moving the Amendment in the way he has.
In Committee we had a discussion partially on this matter. The hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) proposed ideas somewhat on the lines of those contained in the Amendments. Equally, from the same side of the Committee, the hon.

Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), wished to retain the word "consultative" rather than "consumer".
As I am responding to the request of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central, may I say that the two words "consultative" and "consumers'" have come to represent two conflicting views on how the consumer/consultative machinery in a nationalised industry should function. In their extreme form, one view is that the councils are partners in the task of running the industry for the benefit of the consumer. The other view is that the interests of the industry and its customers are opposed and that the councils' function is to stand at arm's length from the board and do battle on behalf of the consumer.
To recapitulate, obviously "consultative" represents the former view and "consumers'" the latter. So under whatever name the councils have, a mixture of the two rôles is right and, in my view, is bound to come about.
Consultative councils were always intended to take up complaints on behalf of consumers, and they do. If the complaint proves to be unjustified, the council will find itself defending the industry's decisions and practices for the consumer. That is right. Not every consumer's complaint is based on truth or fact. On the other hand the councils, through being made aware in their consultative rôle of the industry's problems and policies, are better able to handle complaints and are less likely to be fobbed off with spurious excuses, which has happened in the past.
I am in the happy position of having resigned from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which has just reported, and being able sooner than almost any other Minister to put into effect in legislation the recommendations of the Select Committee. Both the Select Committee and the Bill move away from the emphasis of the 1948 Act without going to the other extreme. The Select Committee said that to represent the interests of the consumer should be the central purpose of all statutory consultative machinery. I agree with that and I am delighted that the Government do, too. But it also underlined the value of consultation between boards and councils on the boards' general plans and arrangements. That is right.
A further more practical factor affecting the councils' name is the impact on consumers. It is interesting to note that the East Midlands Gas Consultative Council, for example, proposed a change to "Gas Users' Council" on the ground that consumers failed to identify the consultative council as a body set up to look after their interests. The change to "Gas Consumers' Council" will be equally effective for this purpose.
I am delighted to accept the Opposition Amendments, but I make it clear that that does not mean a massive change of policy. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), who at one time led the Opposition in Committee, often said that to change a word without a change of policy was wrong. I do not agree, particularly in this instance. But this should not be interpreted as implying any diminution in the consultative role, involving an exchange of information and ideas between what will now be the consumers' councils and the corporation which should be and can be of great long-term benefit to gas consumers. No change in name will do away with the fact that the role of the councils must become really known to the consumers. It must be clearly understood that this body is a watchdog for consumers' complaints. That is what the Government want. I hope that in future there will be a diminution in the number of complaints made to hon. Members because they have been adequately dealt with by the new consumers' council. In this way the consumer will better be able to associate himself with this body, which will be there to look after his interest.
I hope that on this Amendment at least I shall not be accused of not having given the matter full consideration. The Amendment should be accepted and it will, I believe, be welcome to everybody. I hope I can be associated with all the Amendments which go with the Amendment which has been moved in order to bring about the desired end.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: We are grateful for the Minister's acceptance of the substitution of "consumer" for "consultative". I am delighted that these bodies are to be clearly recognised as consumer bodies instead of being called nonsensically consultative bodies. However, I am

a little disappointed that the Minister says that they will be watchdog organisations for the consumer. He must concede that as long as they are financed directly by the Gas Corporation they are toothless watchdogs. As long as the consumers' councils are dependent upon the corporation for their financing, the provision of office facilities and secretarial assistance, they must be seen as creatures of the corporation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will seek at a later stage to ensure that the councils are seen to be independent of the corporation in every sense of the word.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Emery: May I remind the hon. Member that the Amendments that the Government put forward to the Schedule spelt out the position. The hon. Member must have been on constituency business elsewhere when we dealt with the point in Committee. His statement is not quite correct. The councils will be able to appoint their own staff and to select their own premises and they will arrange with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what their budget will be. The corporation will in no way come into the decisions about the budget. That is a matter for the councils and the Secretary of State. These provisions sprung from recommendations of the Select Committee.
The only thing that will be changed is that when the Secretary of State and the consumers' council have agreed on these matters, instead of the money coming from the taxpayer, it will come from the corporation. But the corporation can in no way interfere to influence what the budget can be. The reasons for this relate to the staffing problems. If the hon. Member will look at my speech in Committee he will see the situation explained. There is a quite important point in dispensing the rights of present staff on salary scales and pensions. The point has been closely vetted by myself and the Government and accepted by the Opposition. I hope we have therefore been able to meet the points raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I thank the Under-Secretary for those assurances. I still feel that it is not a great deal to ask the Government to ensure that the councils are seen to be 100 per cent. independent of the Gas Corporation and that


their finances should be provided by a Vote from this House.

Mr. Emery: If that was the case they would be unable to appoint their own staff. Once their staff situation is met by the Government, the staff become civil servants. It was the general opinion of the Committee that the councils should be able to appoint their own staff and that is why I asked the hon. Member to look at the speech I made in Committee. The Government wanted to give the greatest possible degree of independence. I ask the hon. Member to take my assurance on that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

No. 17, in page 8, line 7 leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 18, in line 9, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 19, in line 14, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 20, in line 20, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.—[Mr. Varley.]

Clause 10

FUNCTIONS OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL COUNCILS

Mr. Palmer: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 10, line 17, after 'tariffs', insert
the terms and conditions of bulk supply tariffs".
The Amendment is very important because it deals with one of the primary duties of a regional consumers' council. The Clause says:
A Regional Council shall be charged with the duties (a) of considering any matter affecting the interests of consumers of gas in their area (and, in particular any matter relating to the supply of gas, including the variation of tariffs, or to the supply of gas fittings or the provision of other services and facilities)".
Experience is showing that the question of tariffs bulk very large in the discussions of the consultative councils, or consumers' councils as they are to be from now on.
It has often been said about the consultative councils that they were the weakest feature of nationalisation Statutes. It

has been said, very unkindly, that it was largely a question of a body of excellent ladies and gentlemen coming together and drinking an occasional glass of sherry with the chairman of the gas board or electricity board in question. If at one stage it was a valid criticism of consultative councils that they were not very lively, that they did not have very much cutting edge, I do not think that has been the experience in the past few years. That is because increasingly with inflation, the councils are interesting themselves, as they should, more and more in the question of the price charged by the gas industry to the consumer. It is obviously the most important responsibility of such a council to make certain that the price charged for the commodity is fair, that the consumer is not being overcharged and that the price is compatible with an efficient service.
I do not think anyone would disagree with my argument that arguing, or if necessary quarrelling, with the board or the corporation about the price to be charged is a primary duty of a consultative or consumers' council. That is the point of the Amendment. It was tabled because of a certain revelation when we were discussing the Clause in Standing Committee. To make my point, I am obliged to quote from what the Minister said. By that stage in our discussions the hon. Gentleman had taken over from his predecessor, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who came to an untimely political end. I shall quote the actual words used by the hon. Gentleman on 25th April, replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown).
The hon. Gentleman said that consultative councils might discuss many subjects. He went on to say:
On the subject of supply contracts as opposed to tariffs, some have been negotiated which were the commercial responsibility of the Gas, Council in the past and will be the responsibility of the Gas Corporation.
He said that some of these large bulk supply contracts—I will come to the question of the wording in a moment because it is important to our Amendment—have contributed to the amortisation of the trunk lines system which has been introduced into the country. No one is disagreeing with this.
At that point I intervened. If I might be allowed to quote my own words, I said:
The hon. Gentleman is on a very important point here. I am a little alarmed. Is he suggesting that certain bulk consumers would have their own private contracts and the terms of those contracts would not be available, even on a confidential basis, to the national consultative councils?
The hon. Gentleman did not beat about the bush. He was straightforward as he always is. He said:
Certainly. And, of course, they should not be. Nor are they able to be made known to an hon. Member here. The competition that exists for certain bulk supply contracts is very definite and very considerable. This is the sort of commercial aspect that I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman opposite would have desired in order to negotiate the best prices.
He went on to say:
This is a matter of commercial confidence, and it would be quite wrong to run the risk of such information being widely known."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 25th April, 1972; c. 786.]
This came as a great shock to us because we were assuming, whatever the hon. Gentleman may say about these consultative councils, that commercial companies were the same as they always were. In fact, they have been growing in status and importance, and they are more and more interested in the price being charged for gas. In future, with one centralised corporation running the whole show, probably in London, it is important that both the ordinary domestic consumers and the industrial consumers should have a strong voice on tariffs.
We are arguing—this is the reason for putting down the Amendment—that it is not fair to the consumer councils that certain information about tariffs should be concealed from them. I accept the point that there is probably a case for confidentiality, but that case can be over-stressed. In the Statutes for the nationalised industries, and in this case the electricity board, there is a provision which forbids the electricity board charging one consumer of the same class differently from another. It must not show "undue preference".
I am always in some doubt as to how the provision against undue preference in the matter of tariffs is reconciled with the fact that apparently there can be special tariffs which are secret in their

nature, which are not known from one consumer to another and certainly not known to the general public. It is fairly certain that the consultative councils are not going to take very kindly to that state of affairs.

Mr. Emery: Consumer councils.

Mr. Palmer: I am sorry; old habits persist. Wherever I say "consultative council" please read "consumer council" to avoid my saying each time "consultative councils or consumer councils as we now know them".
It is a matter that wants looking at. At any rate, the Minister should favour the House with some facts and figures about the number of special tariffs or special quotations for the supply of gas. Are they diminishing or are they likely to be greater in future? It is no good talking grandly about responsibility of the consumer councils for checking on fair prices for gas and then saying that certain areas will be concealed from them.
2.15 a.m.
We are advised that there is some difficulty over the wording of the Amendment. The Under-Secretary of State, when talking about special contracts for the supply of gas, referred to them as "bulk supply contracts", and I have also used that description in my public utility experience. To me, a bulk supply tariff is a wholesale tariff, where one is taking the energy in very large quantities and therefore gets a special quotation. However, we are advised by the gas industry that the term "bulk supply tariff" is used in the industry to describe tariffs charged under the supervision of the Gas Council to the individual gas boards, taking one with another.
I am a little puzzled by this information because there is, in the gas industry as it is, nobody similar to the Central Electricity Generating Board, but certain financial arrangements were made concerning charges between one individual board and another. Apparently it is the supply to a gas board which is normally referred to as a bulk supply tariff for the kind of contract I have been referring to. The industry uses it in the sense of a special price or special supply contract.
But I do not think the matter greatly important. Reasonable people including even lawyers would interpret the words of the Amendment in an intelligent fashion. In speaking of bulk supply tariffs we are referring to prices to be charged for the supply of gas outside the normal scheduled price. These are special prices to be charged to large consumers, usually industrial consumers.
We think it wrong to establish consumer councils in a reorganised industry with a great blare of trumpets and then say that there are areas they must not look at. Members of consumer councils are responsible people and can be trusted to treat special information in confidence and rationally. It is not good for equality of treatment as between one consumer and another to have no forum where their representatives can ensure that there is fair treatment all round. More open discussion of these matters in consultative bodies will assist relations between the industry and the public generally and between the industry and its industrial and commercial consumers.

Mr. Garrett: On this subject I take a view which is different from that taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer).
If we lived in Utopia this would be a good Amendment. But we are dealing with a consumers council. It would be impossible to keep any degree of confidentiality relative to the different rates paid under the bulk tariff. Something new is not being introduced. Many years ago, when the National Coal Board had a greater and wider supply of fuel, there were separate agreements reached with private industry relative to price per ton. It worked well.
There must be variations in the bulk supply. There must be variations in the cost of supplying the gas to a new factory from the grid. That factory may be one or two miles away from the grid. Perhaps different pipes are required for different pressures. Valves may have to be inserted in different sections of the pipeline. All those would be matters of variation relative to the contract to purchase gas from the new Gas Corporation.
I do not support this Amendment. I could have given my reasons in greater

detail. On this occasion the Minister will be pleased to have at least one ally on his side.

Mr. Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech and for his extreme pleasantness in not pressing to speak on the first Amendment on fuel policy. He sat through a lot of that debate. I am grateful that he restrained his desire to speak so as to allow progress to be made.
There is a certain amount of confusion about this Amendment. It reflects considerable semantic problems on the part of the mover. He explained the difficulty in terminology. In the gas and electricity industries "bulk supply tariff" means the tariff at which the central body—the Gas Council or the CEGB—sells gas or electricity to area boards. Under a unitary organisation there will, clearly, be no bulk supply tariff in that sense.
The problem is that the hon. Gentleman was coming back to the interpretation of the phrase "bulk supply tariff" as tending to mean that tariff applicable to a special, contracted supply to a very large consumer. I accept that that is what he means.
I do not wish to argue against this Amendment only because of its wording. Even if it were properly drafted I would not be able to accept it. The probable problem is that the special arrangements are not tariffs in that sense. There is not, under the existing law or the Bill, any obligation to publish them; nor could there be any such obligation without breaching commercial confidentiality.
Although the Amendment, interpreted as relating to special agreements, would not place a direct obligation on the Gas Corporation to disclose the terms, there would be a clear implication that the National Council should not be left in the position of having no information about that which it had a duty to consider.
The position is that disclosures on a confidential basis to the National Council would not be satisfactory. Let us follow the example of the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) in his suggestion that we could not keep this matter absolutely confidential, and let us look at a situation in the Potteries, for example, where one of the members of the consultative council is associated with one of the china firms. Could he be expected


to be entirely impartial if he had knowledge of specially negotiated agreements for supplies of gas which might in some ways be different from his competitors? This is not necessary for the correct working of the consumer councils. It is not the big boys who need to be defended, it is the smaller people about whom I am concerned. The big boys can look after themselves.
What is reasonable is that the regional councils should be able to expect to be informed of the general principles on which special contracts are negotiated. This will suffice to enable them to protect the interests of consumers generally. I am willing to give an undertaking—there is nothing new in this—that the consumer councils will be informed of the general principles on which these contracts are negotiated. That would go a long way to meeting the objections of the hon. Member.

Mr. Palmer: I am grateful to the hon. Member for those remarks. Is he outlining the present practice or something which is an advance? It seems to be an advance.

Mr. Emery: I have to say in all honesty that I cannot be absolutely sure. I believe it is present practice. What I am willing to say is that I would want to ensure that it was the practice in the future.

Mr. Palmer: I said in moving the Amendment that there were certain problems about defining bulk supply tariffs, but if the Minister had accepted the principle of the Amendment I am sure that the wording would not have presented a great deal of difficulty. He is not prepared to do that, and he and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) have raised objections with which I cannot agree. There has to be much more diplomacy in these operations. Nothing the Under-Secretary said detracted from that. This kind of arrangement breeds suspicion.
Nevertheless, in view of the Minister's assurance that the principles underlying special tariff arrangements will be explained to the consultative councils, we do not wish to press the Amendment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25

METHOD OF CHARGE AND TARIFFS

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Varley: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 20, line 16, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 18 and insert:
'whenever altered be notified by the Corporation to each consumer by means of an individually addressed communication'.
The Amendment brings into focus the methods which the Gas Corporation will use when making tariffs known and when changes in tariffs are made. We seek to end the present wholly permissive system under the 1948 Act and place a duty on the corporation to notify each customer individually by letter when tariffs are altered.
I decided to table the Amendment after receiving—on 5th June—a letter from a gas customer in the Eastern Gas Board region and a whole sheaf of correspondence. The circumstances of this case are such that it has general application to all gas customers.
Notification of tariff changes is at present undertaken by area gas boards. The provisions are set out in Section 53(4) of the 1948 Act:
Subject to the following provisions of this subsection, the prices to be charged by an Area Board for the supply of gas by them shall be in accordance with such tariffs as may be fixed from time to time by them, and those tariffs shall be so framed as to show the methods by which and the principles on which the charges are to be made as well as the prices which are to be charged"—
it is these next words which are permissive—
and shall be published in such manner as in the opinion of the Area Board will secure adequate publicity for them.
Area boards—certainly this applies to the Eastern Gas Board—interpret those words to mean notifying changes by buying advertising space in local newspapers. When tariffs are changed, it is the practice to include a leaflet in the first account sent to a customer after the new rates have been decided. The words of Section 53 are repeated exactly in Clause 25(3). We think that the words need to be tightened up to ensure that customers are fully aware of the various tariffs available to them and can choose the one which is most advantageous.
In January, 1971, the Eastern Gas Board introduced a new tariff L, which was advertised in local newspapers and in leaflets included with gas accounts. The gas customer I mentioned previously is a relatively large customer, and he complained to the gas board that had he been notified of the new tariff L he would have been able to save £17·62. The gas board replied that the statutory obligation had been met and, whilst it was freely admitted that tariff L was to his advantage, there could be no question of refunding the £17·62. The customer wrote to the Eastern Gas Consultative Council, which endorsed the gas board's decision. He finally wrote to his Member of Parliament, who in turn wrote to the Chairman of the Eastern Gas Board, but again Section 53(4) of the 1948 Act was quoted and it was maintained that the statutory obligation had been met. To be fair, the statutory obligation had been met.
Cannot we frame this new legislation so as to ensure that customers get to know more precisely what are the tariffs and which one will be to their advantage? The Under-Secretary of State might say that newspaper advertising and the inclusion of a leaflet with the gas account are enough but I think that the system could be improved. No one reads all the statutory notices appearing in local newspapers which are put in by rural and urban district councils, county councils, the National Coal Board, electricity boards, water boards and gas boards. The 13 million gas consumers do not scan their local newspapers every week to see whether new tariffs are announced.
It is possible for the leaflet to be omitted from the envelope bearing the account. Many leaflets advertising appliances come with accounts from national boards. These are not scrutinised in detail. The only sensible answer is for an individually addressed communication to be sent to each consumer. We are not suggesting that the Chairman of the new Gas Corporation should get out his quill pen and a bottle of ink and write to every one of the 13 million customers individually when tariffs are changed. Individual communications are sent in the form of quarterly accounts, and the leaflet could be adapted to ensure that customers are aware of the tariffs and able to judge which one best suits their needs.
Assuming that it is not possible to accept the Amendment providing for individual communications to be sent, I put three suggestions to the Minister for his consideration. First, I want him to concede that the present system is unsatisfactory and that repeating the words of the 1948 Act is unsatisfactory. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider putting down an Amendment of his own in another place to rectify it. However, if he cannot do that, will he ensure that this matter is brought to the attention of the new National Consumers Council, when it is set up? The third alternative is that the corporation should be asked, when it introduces new tariffs, to give people time to assimilate them and to provide a further retrospective option of a limited duration to ensure that people do not miss the boat.
Naturally, we hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment and that he will say there are no insuperable difficulties involved in sending out individual notices to consumers. Failing that, we hope that the hon. Gentleman will say that one of my three suggestions can be accepted.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) moved his Amendment with the moderation that this House has come to expect. It has not been disappointed. However, the House does not expect such moderation from me. Again, it will not be disappointed.
My hon. Friend said that this matter arose from a specific case but that he drew a general moral from it. I draw a particularised moral from what seems to be a slackness in the drafting of legislation. It will not be good enough for the Minister to say that this provision merely repeats the words of a Labour Government's Act of Parliament. We all have great affection for my noble Friend Lord Shinwell, but I do not think that anyone will say that what Lord Shinwell may have said at any time is necessarily the last word on any matter.
This wording, as it was in the 1948 Act and as it is repeated in the subsection, is nowhere near satisfactory. As in the Sound Broadcasting Bill, we are in the realm of opinion. What is to be done should be in the opinion of the corporation. It means that the corporation may do whatever it wishes and,


if challenged, its chairman can say that in his opinion and that of his colleagues in the corporation the publicity is adequate. It could put a handwritten postcard in a newsagent's shop window giving details of its new tariffs. If challenged with this absurdity, the corporation could say that in its opinion, which was all that was required, that was adequate publicity. If it wished, it could place an advertisement in the personal columns of ITmagazine. The Attorney-General might not think that a suitable place, but as long as the corporation said that in its opinion this was adequate publicity, it could not be challenged in the courts or in this House. This kind of drafting has been all too frequent. I fear that the Solicitor-General has had a hand in the drafting of more legislation than we have been told about and that he might have been involved in this, too.
2.45 a.m.
If the Minister is going to tell us this is customary wording, I am afraid it is not satisfactory to me. If he is going to tell us it is Labour Government wording, I shall say that is not good enough for me, either. Labour Governments are superior to Conservative Governments but they are not perfect. If he is going to tell us he has faith in the corporation, and that, therefore, if the corporation says that in its opinion publicity was adequate, it is, then all I am saying is that the case history outlined by my hon. Friend—there must be many other case histories which are submerged—shows that what the corporation alleges is adequate is not necessarily so.
I hope the Minister will accept the sensible words in the Amendment which can be interpreted liberally, exactly as the original wording is interpreted liberally, words which do not oblige a personal letter, typewritten, duplicated, and so on, but could mean a printed communication provided that it is personally addressed. I hope the Minister will make encouraging noises because at this hour it would be a little hard on us to have to trudge through the Lobby.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I should like to support the Amendment. It seems that we ought to make this ordinary requirement

on a public body mandatory. It has to inform consumers when it is putting up the charge or making any changes in tariffs.
We have all had the same type of case as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) where public bodies have been able to get out of their responsibilities by arguing that they discharged them according to the Act, but it is unreasonable to expect any customer to search the pages of his local paper, assuming that he buys it. These advertisements are usually placed in the middle of a long series of others advertising a variety of other things. Often a local authority has a whole page advertising compulsory purchase orders, tenders for jobs and a whole range of issues. It is not unusual to find that the gas board and others have their advertisements in the middle, and one has to read the whole lot to find them. It is not right for us as a House to accept that we should write into this legislation any aberrations that the House may have had in past legislation just because it was so.
My hon. Friend made a powerful case drawn from personal experience. It is a clear indication of what is happening. Those of us who have equal complaints from our constituents over the last few years could provide some support. I am not prepared to have just noises. Either those words are not sufficient and the words on the Order Paper are, or we must make our position clear. I hope my hon. Friend will not be upset by the blandishments of the Government Whips' office to pull out.
There has been what is called a dishonourable arrangement. I get tired of arrangements between my side of the House and hon. Members opposite. I just bent down to tie up my shoelace outside when I heard their Whips talking to my Whips about my hon. Friend being persuaded to withdraw. This is an important Amendment. It is important for those people who are customers of the Gas Corporation. They are entitled to be told as a direct contract. If they are in arrears they get a letter pretty quickly as a direct contract. Therefore, where there are any changes in tariffs there is an equal obligation on the gas boards to notify their customers direct. I hope that we shall hear that the Minister has accepted the Amendment.

Mr. Emery: I am delighted to be told that the blandishments of the Whips are affecting the course of the debate. I had not noticed much of that happening. I will not pursue that line as it would be out of order.
I have looked carefully at the Amendment. Even at this late hour, because of the manner in which it has been moved, I must try to put the matter in complete perspective.
Clause 25(3) requires the Gas Corporation to publish its tariffs, as fixed by it from time to time,
in such manner as in the opinion of the Corporation will secure adequate publicity for them.
The Amendment, if accepted, would specify instead a particular means of publicising tariff changes. The intention to ensure that every consumer is made aware of variations in tariffs is laudable—it is perhaps even more laudable if the tariffs do not affect him—but the proposal bristles with a number of difficulties which even the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) would understand.
First, a general tariff change, following the suggestion in the Amendment, would involve sending out about 13 million notifications. This would involve a considerable amount of work, more office staff, and extra expense. That expense would have to be met by the Gas Corporation and would not achieve what is intended by the Opposition.

Mr. Kaufman: Mr. Kaufman rose——

Mr. Emery: I will make a point of giving way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this line of argument.
This would not necessarily achieve the intention of the Opposition to try to make certain that consumers have the benefit of knowledge of any better rate or alteration in rate which might be beneficial to them. I am not convinced that the Amendment goes to that length.

Mr. Kaufman: The Under-Secretary mentioned expense. Has any estimate been made of the expense so that we can look at it in perspective?

Mr. Emery: Too much. At this hour I think that is an adequate answer. It could be argued that this information might be included with the quarterly bill.

If so, we are seeing that with the Eastern Gas Board, to which reference was made. A leaflet about the tariff increase of 3rd January, 1971, was sent to all credit customers with their gas accounts. That was a definite, specific and simple revised gas operating tariff. There is was for them. It is not that that is not done. On 7th January, 1972,obviously in preparation for this Amendment, the board glossed it up a little, and instead of the more formal printed document there was a comprehensive piece of literature which said:
Gas tariff for domestic consumers. No changes have been made to the structure of existing tariffs. No new tariffs have been introduced.
The Eastern Gas Board was willing to do that just to make certain that its customers understood the situation.
It was the Eastern Gas Board that was being criticised. May I say in passing that I find that criticism less convincing and less worrying when I discover that the person making the complaint is a tax consultant. If he, as a tax consultant, did not bother to find out the change in tariff, I am not all that worried. But that is just in passing.
The situation is that the area board being complained about has gone to considerable trouble to try to ensure that exactly the type of information which is being argued for by hon. Gentlemen opposite is made available.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is doing his best—and as always it is an agreeable best—to help the House, but I must tell him that what he is saying is convincing me more and more how important the Amendment is. First, the hon. Gentleman has exhibited this leaflet which looks like the kind of leaflet that one gets asking one to have central heating installed. It has a nice picture on the front, and one throws in the wastepaper basket. Secondly, it was not sent when the tariff was changed, and, therefore, there was no obligation on people looking at it to see whether the new tariff would help or harm them. Thirdly, he says, and the House is interested to hear this, that the individual to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) referred is a tax consultant. If this kind of thing passes the notice of a tax consultant, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Mr. Emery: If the Gas Corporation were to be under a statutory obligation to notify consumers individually of any alterations in tariff, a consumer might refuse to pay the increased bill, claiming that he had not received notification. Although he would not appear to have any legal right to take that action, it could become necessary for the corporation to produce evidence of posting, or possibly evidence of receipt by the customer, to meet that challenge. That is one of the major difficulties.
Another difficulty arises with pre-payment meters. The gas industry frequently does not even know the names of the customers using certain pre-payment meters where, for example, there have been changes in tenancy. These are most frequent in urban areas in Manchester, London, Birmingham, and so on. Therefore in practice the industry usually secures publicity for its tariffs in whatever way it believes is right.
It seems to me that, if anything, the Amendment does not sufficiently stress that this responsibility is a matter for the corporation to work out, taking account of any of the views of the consumer councils—those views need not necessarily be accepted—and I come to the three alternatives that were put to me by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). I am not willing to say that the situation is immensely unsatisfactory. Trying to specify in the Bill particular means of publicity is, perhaps, much too rigid. But I am willing to take the second alternative I was asked to consider, which it seems is not unreasonable, that is, that I should bring to the attention of the new Gas Consumers' Council the concern of hon. Members about this notification. It seems that that is what everyone would want Therefore, I would say that we expect management to be reasonable about this.
3.0 a.m.
At one moment, the argument of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) led me to suppose that I had to respond by saying "Yes, but these are reasonable people who want to achieve exactly what we want to achieve." However, if I bring this matter to the attention of the new National Gas Consumers' Council when it has been appointed, asking that body—as I believe

is the wish the House and the Gas Corporation, and certainly it would be the wish of the Consumers'Council—to make certain that this notification was done in the ways which were best for the consumer, I have every reason to believe that this would be helpful to the new corporation and to the consumer.
I hope that on this Amendment, therefore, we have been able to bring about a debate which, perhaps being slightly more than probing, has been quite useful. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Chesterfield will not feel the need to rally the forces, as suggested by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick in order to have to trudge through the Lobby.

Mr. Varley: The Under-Secretary has gone part of the way. In some respects I regret that he half-way identified the consumer who drew this matter to my attention. Originally I had half a mind to give chapter and verse on this case. Perhaps that would not have been a bad thing. But it would have delayed proceedings on the Bill for much longer than was my intention. I should not be tempted to do so now, even though the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the matter. But to reinforce my point, this particular gas consumer claims in this correspondence with the Gas Consultative Council, the gas board and his Member of Parliament that he never received the glossy leaflet to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. It did not go through his door. It did not get stuffed into the envelope that carried his bill. Consequently this consumer thinks, quite properly, that he is aggrieved.
I am still not entirely happy with the wording in the Bill. It would be proper and within the legislative drafting prowess of the parliamentary draftsmen to form words which would be much more satisfactory than those in the Bill. If that were the case, the Minister could look at the thing to see whether an Amendment could be tabled in another place.
However, in view of the assurance given—and I take it that it was an assurance——

Mr. Ronald Brown: As I suspect what my hon. Friend is about to say, I draw his attention to the fact that whilst the Minister's argument sounded plausible, in that the Minister will get in touch with


the boards saying that they ought to do this, that has no validity whatsoever. I beg my hon. Friend to understand that we are the custodians and the protectors of the consumer vis-à-vis this sort of body. Therefore, I beg my hon. Friend to stick to the Amendment. It is a good Amendment. The Minister has not invalidated it in any way. I beg my hon. Friend not to give way to the blandishments of the Minister.

Mr. Varley: It depends on whether the Minister is much more forthcoming.
Will the Minister concede that the wording in the Bill is unsatisfactory? Consumers of gas may be passed by and as a consequence of not receiving a

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw the attention of the Patronage Secretary to the fact that if he has any good sense he will bring 20 of his colleagues in?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): That is hardly a point of order.

communication will not know that they can take advantage of a new tariff. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to concede that the wording is unsatisfactory. If he says that and that he will consider tabling an Amendment in another place to deal with the point, I will withdraw the Amendment. If he does not say that, my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) will get his way and we shall have a Division. Apparently, we are not to get that assurance. Therefore, we shall have to press the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 81.

Division No. 265.]
AYES
[3.10 a.m.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Kaufman, Gerald



Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Tom Pendry and


Garrett, W. E.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Golding, John
Varley, Eric G.





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hawkins, Paul
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Benyon, W.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rost, Peter


Biffen, John
James, David
Sharples, Richard


Biggs-Davison, John
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Boscawen, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Bowden, Andrew
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sinclair, Sir George


Bray, Ronald
Kinsey, J. R.
Soref, Harold


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Speed, Keith


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Sproat, Iain


Chapman, Sydney
Luce, R. N.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Clegg, Walter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stokes, John


Cockeram, Eric
Montgomery, Fergus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Cooke, Robert
More, Jasper
Sutcliffe, John


Crouch, David
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Emery, Peter
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fidler, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fortescue, Tim
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Waddington, David


Fox, Marcus
Osborn, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gibson-Watt, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
Pink, R. Bonner
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Worsley, Marcus


Gray, Hamish
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis



Grylls, Michael
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, C.)
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Hannam, John (Exeter)

Clause 31

POWER TO MAKE SAFETY REGULATIONS

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Golding: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 26, line 3, leave out
'so far as practicable'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to discuss Amendment No. 24, in page 27, line 27, at end insert—
'(5) In order to assist him to decide what regulations are necessary he shall call for reports on all casees of death and personal injury which arise from the leakage of gas'.

Mr. Golding: Subsection (1) says:
The Secretary of State may make such regulations as he thinks fit for the purpose of securing that the public is so far as practicable protected from any personal injury, fire, explosion or other dangers arising from the transmission or distribution of gas by the Corporation, or from the use of gas supplied by the Corporation.
I move the Amendment because I cannot trust the Minister to treat the words
so far as practicable
in any reasonable way. I have no confidence that he treats gas safety with the seriousness that it deserves. It is customary in a speech of this kind to say that such doubts apply not to the present Minister but to any future Minister that could be appointed, but that is not the case on this occasion. Although the Amendment was put on the Order Paper before 23rd June, before the Minister responded to our new Clause which called for absolute liability on the Gas Corporation for damage arising out of gas accidents, after 23rd June, when the hon. Gentleman spoke on the question of gas safety, the Amendment became even more relevant. In replying to the debate on the new Clause he showed clearly that he is utterly complacent on the question of gas safety. Now that the Government have backed up the Gas Council in making it very difficult for those who are injured or whose property is damaged in gas explosions to receive compensation, there is an added responsibility on the Government to ensure that those explosions do not take place.
I will not weary the House at this early hour with all the figures I could produce of the seriousness of the situation. However, I remind hon. Members that an official Post Office engineering magazine, Safety, has revealed that gas accidents in the Post Office have multiplied more than five times over the past seven years. In the years between 1969 and 1971 the accident figures doubled. Yesterday morning I learned that between February, 1969, and January, 1972,there were in Post Office plants alone 69

explosions caused by leakage of natural gas. I have been advised that the periods which it has taken gas boards to clear leaks in the Eastern telephone region are considerable. Out of 245 reported gas leaks, 18 have not been cleared after two years. This is a serious problem.
I shall quote a few other figures from the eastern region—that is not the region which I represent, but I am sure that hon. Members who represent seats in East Anglia and the eastern region—for example, Southend—will be interested. Seventeen gas leaks were reported two years ago which have not yet been cleared. If one looks at the clearances which have not taken place before a month was out, then the seriousness of the situation can be seen even more clearly. There were five cases in Bedford, 36 in Cambridge, 17 in Colchester, 23 in Norwich and 13 in Oxford in that category.
When one looks at the figures it becomes apparent that there is a great delay on the part of the gas authorities in clearing gas leaks which have been reported to them. Hon. Members opposite may smile, but remember that each and every one of these gas leaks is a potential disaster. This is a very serious subject.
Why does the delay occur? That is a question I want the Minister to answer. One suggestion which has been put to me is that once again private industry is letting down a public enterprise. I am advised that after a fault is reported and a gas fitter has verified that there is a leak, the job is put out to private sub-contractors. Will the Minister tell us whether this is so? Is it the gas authority's fault that the leaks have not been cured, or is it the responsibility of the private sub-contractors?

Mr. Garrett: On a point of clarification, the hon. Gentleman is obviously referring to the south-eastern region because in the northern region none of the repair work is done by contractors but directly by the Northern Gas Board. Why is it necessary for private contractors to take over at that stage of the procedure to cure a leak?

Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend will know that I am opposed to the concept of nationalised industries contracting


work. However, the question should be asked of the Minister. If this contracting is taking place, what is the extent of the sub-contracting? Will the Minister tell us the names of the firms which are involved? I have been told—I shall leave it to the Minister to confirm or deny this information—that the firm of William Press has been involved in this work and has been responsible, because of certain problems regarding the recruitment of labour, for the delays that lead to potential hazards.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Will my hon. Friend consider whether it would be better if a smell was put into natural gas as we had in town gas? If a smell was introduced, a leak could not continue for two years as people would smell it and action would be taken.

Mr. Golding: I am not sure that is true. I know from a constituency example of an old person's house which had a gas leak which continued for some considerable time.
It is against this background that we have to judge the Minister's attitude. I began this speech by putting the blame on him. I was disappointed to see him leaving the Chamber, because my charge is against him. It is customary in moving such an Amendment to say that the present Minister is a responsible person and that we are concerned about protecting ourselves in the future. I made it clear that I was not taking that line. I am sorry that he has left us because I want to examine what he told us on 23rd June. He said:
I would emphasise that there are in the industry some of the most up-to-date and advanced methods to ensure safety. In the same way, I believe that responsibilities placed upon Ministers in this respect are properly acted upon.
I would certainly reinforce that statement from my own personal, although short, experience in this office. The codes of practice laid down in the Bill and prepared by my Department have resulted from consultation with outside bodies. Hon. Members will appreciate that on certain matters I have been willing to go further than any other Minister has ever done in seeing that the House has knowledge of these matters and in seeing that relevant papers are placed in the library. Therefore, I would not accept any comment that there is other than the most up-to-date approach both by the Council and by the industry in questions of gas safety."

—[Official Report, 23rd June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 919.]
The most charitable thing I can say about the hon. Gentleman is that he has been in office only a short time and is now in a position to challenge a Civil Service brief.
What are these up-to-date and advanced methods to ensure safety? In the TV programme "Tomorrow's World", the new frame ionisation equipment was shown. I understand some of this equipment is owned by the gas authority. Some people believe that the equipment, which costs only £1,000, could be used more extensively to save injuries. Others believe it to be too sensitive and that because it can only be used vertically it is not so good. How successful is it? Is it being used extensively? How much is it being used? I am interested not in tomorrow's world, but in today's—hence the Amendment. I say it with levity but it is a serious point that my constituents and members of my union, the Post Office Engineering Union, are not so much concerned with today's world but more with avoiding going into the next world.
I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State has returned, because this is an important matter. I am informed also that the Post Office's pellistor device uses a platignum wire more successfully at the moment than ionisation equipment. This wire was developed at the Safety in Mines Research Establishment in Sheffield. What research is the gas authority undertaking? How widely is this type of equipment used? I understand, too, that the Japanese have marketed a gas indicator. What tests have been made of that by the gas authority?
3.30 a.m.
The Minister praised the material he had placed in the Library. On that occasion he said:
Hon. Members will appreciate that on certain matters I have been willing to go further than any other Minister has ever done in seeing that the House has knowledge of these matters and in seeing that relevant papers are placed in the Library."—[Official Report, 23rd June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 919.]
I asked the librarians to let me see the information the Minister had placed in the Library which would demonstrate the care that the gas authority was taking. I have the material. It is not heavy. One publication is entitled "Natural Gas in the 70s" and the other "Natural Gas


on Target". The Minister may want to intervene to say he put more material in the Library.

Mr. Emery: I shall make my own speech.

Mr. Golding: I was given this material by the librarians when I showed them the reference to what the Minister said. There are two pamphlets which were recently issued by the Gas Council. I have read them very carefully. There is not a word about safety in them. There are pictures of swimming pools such as the gas heated swimming pool at London's new Skyline Hotel. There are other pictures of a similar nature. One does not find pictures of people who have been injured by explosions which should never have occurred.
On 23rd June I showed to Parliament a picture of a man whose face had been burned. That man gave authority for the photograph to be shown as a warning to other people not to trust natural gas or to work where it could explode. That picture was on the front of a Post Office safety magazine.
The two publications contain nothing relevant to the subject of safety. It was misleading of the Minister, unless other papers are in the Library, to suggest that the question of safety was covered by the papers. In the magazines there is no photograph of a telephone kiosk which had been turned into a lethal weapon by escaping natural gas.
On 23rd June, 1972, I read a letter from East London showing there had been a telephone kiosk filling with gas during one week which could have exploded very easily, causing a major disaster. There is no suggestion in these publications that "Natural Gas on Target" meant that natural gas can turn a telephone kiosk into the movable type of kiosk in which Dr. Who travels on Saturday evenings.

Mr. Emery: This is the second occasion when that reference has been made. A certain amount of the material has been given to Parliament. I refrained on the last occasion from embarrassing the hon. Gentleman. The arguments the hon. Gentleman is putting forward on behalf of the Post Office, the workers and the union have never been made to the

Department or the Gas Council. This is something which the hon. Gentleman is blowing up beyond all proportion.

Mr. Golding: The words "blowing up out of all proportion" would sound a little strange in Glasgow. "Blowing up" is the operative phrase. I am not speaking for the Post Office, not even for the Post Office Engineering Union, I am speaking for the public, I am speaking for my constituents, who suffered in the Madeley gas explosion, who suffered in the Hattrell Street gas explosion, when a man was killed. It is no defence for the Minister to say that his Department has not been told by another Department.
What about Governmental responsibility? Are we to listen to one Minister saying "I did not hear about it; it is another Minister's responsibility?" Are they to shift the responsibility, as happened to my constituents when the Post Office said, "It's not our fault. It is the fault of the gas board" and the gas board said, "It's not our fault. It is a Post Office responsibility"? Someone ultimately has to accept the responsibility, and it has to be accepted at that Dispatch Box. It is a nonsense for the Minister who is responsible for gas safety to be saying "No one told me". The Morton report made clear that gas leaks occur and will continue to occur. If the Minister had looked at the report of the Glasgow inquest recently and at other coroners' reports such as the one from my constituency, he would not need someone to tell him that this was a problem. Anyone reading the newspapers over the last two years knows it is a problem. The Morton Committee was set up because the public knew it was a problem.

Mr. Ronald Brown: The Department of Trade and Industry has a vast interest in this and has a research department whose sole purpose is to research into this. My hon. Friend has the right to ask the Minister how much research his Department has done.

Mr. Golding: I agree I have that right. I have the right to point out that in these books, supposed to deal with safety, there is nothing about safety. The most interesting thing in them is the investment figures, which show that safety could easily be included in the large budget. The title of one of these is "Natural Gas


on Target" which I said on 23rd June was a sick joke. The Minister highlighted other deficiencies in his approach.
I quote the Minister's words:
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme suggested that natural gas is a novelty. That is not true in the sense in which he was discussing the danger factor. He mentioned the drying out of joints, and I would stress that this danger arose with other types of gas which come from oil products, such as the naphtha process. Town gas manufactured from oil-based materials sometimes had injected into it a certain degree of precipitate to ensure that the sort of problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would not occur.…
The hon. Gentleman said that it was only when somebody was killed that a thorough investigation took place. I must nail that statement, since it is not correct. All explosions are investigated and any serious explosion is investigated very thoroughly, and in such instances reports are made available to my Department. From time to time all mains are monitored by sensitive mobile detectors for breakage and the frequency of investigation depends on the age of the mains and any deterioration which may be known about them.
On the point made by the hon. Gentleman that a visual inspection is of major importance, I suggest that in many instances, particularly in respect of conversion, visual inspection would mean the digging up of ground around joints. This is unnecessary with the use of other much more modern methods, which are more efficient than visual inspection and can be applied to deal with a specific problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1972; Vol 839, cc. 920–21.]
Is precipitate being injected into natural gas? If it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) suggested that it was, how successful has it been? My hon. Friend said that some experts have said that if natural gas with some added smell lies under certain soils the smell disappears.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman is again misleading the House. Part of his argument is that I did not fulfil the obligations which I said that I would fulfil. I have said that the documents which I said would be deposited in the Library were deposited in the Library. What is more, I now have a copy of that which was deposited in the Library—namely, the safety regulations. I hope to have an apology from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Golding: I shall be glad to see the safety regulations which were deposited.

Mr. Emery: On 18th May.

Mr. Golding: I shall be delighted to see the regulations. I went to the Library

and asked for the documents. I was shown a document which said that six copies of the relevant documents—"Natural Gas on Target" and "Natural Gas in the Seventies"—were enclosed for the benefit of hon. Members. If there was an additional document, I should be happy to see it, and would gladly withdraw. I wish to see precisely what document was placed in the Library to see whether it measures up to the hon. Gentleman's claim.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman is not even willing to accept my word. The document is Section 67 of the Gas Act, 1968, gas installation in premises, proposed safety regulations—exactly the proposed safety regulations as they were dealt with in draft, the same safety regulations which we would then apply, not from the old Act, but with the new Act. That was the assurance I gave to the Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman was not a member. I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South-East (Mr. Rost) that it took him exactly 30 seconds to get the safety regulations from the Library.

Mr. Garrett: Will the Minister confirm that the Amendment proposed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make an intervention on an intervention.

Mr. Golding: I apologise to the Minister if that is the case. I shall want to pursue my inquiries. I took with me to the Library an extract of what the Minister had said and asked to be given the papers which he had stated were deposited. I was shown a list of publications relevant to the gas industry containing a note to the effect that six copies of the two documents to which I have referred had been included. Perhaps the Minister will take my word that the document to which he has referred was not given to me. I reserve my position until I can judge whether that document meets the claim that the Minister has gone further than is normal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South has said that the smell of natural gas lying under certain soils could be taken away so that the gas was not detectable. Do the safety regulations contain any reference to the danger that might result from the disappearance of the smell?


The properties of natural gas are different from those of coal gas, as was made clear in Professor Morton's report which I quoted on 23rd June:
The gas may escape as a result of leakages in transmissions and distribution lines, failure of joints to remain gastight, leakage through pipe walls as a result of corrosion, or from ill-fitting or mal-adjusted connections.
He made it clear that
Medium and low pressure feeder and street mains are occasionally of welded steel construction but are more often built up of sections of cast-iron pipe connected by socketed joints. The traditional type of joint in the older cast-iron mains, of which there are many thousands of miles throughout the country, is the open socketed type in which the sealing material is help yarn held in position by lead. The transition to dry, manufactured gas and natural gas has caused frequent leakages from these joints as a result of the drying out of the hemp packing…Leakage from the older types of gas main has been a familiar problem for many years and the gas boards are well aware of the danger from leaks and the cost to themselves of any substantial loss of gas. The use of higher pressures, drier gas and latterly natural gas in the district systems has caused the gas board to undertake intensive programmes of clamping, sealing and—where necessary—renewal…The total length of gas mains in the country is so vast, however (of the order of 120,000 miles of main and several millions of joints), that many years will be needed for the elimination of all risks.
On 23rd June I made it clear that I was not prepared to wait for years. In the days of the horse before heavy lorries, in the days of town gas before the pressure was doubled, in the iron age before the days of steel, it was reasonable to allow cast-iron piping near the surface of our roads. It is no longer reasonable, because cast-iron pipes are subject to fracture. The Bell Company is laying its cable at least four feet below the surface. The gas authority should replace all its cast-iron piping as quickly as possible.
This is an urgent requirement in an area like Newcastle-under-Lyme which is subject to subsidence. Where such pipes are subjected to additional pressure because of heavy traffic, or in areas which are subject to subsidence as a result of coal or salt workings, it is very important that gas pipes be replaced as quickly as possible to meet the new requirements.
On 23rd June, replying to points which had been made by the Newcastle-under-Lyme coroner following the Hattrell Street disaster, the Minister dismissed visual inspection and spoke of other and

more modern methods. Under Clause 31 the Minister is himself responsible for safety. I want him now to state what these modern methods are and how extensively they are being used. I do not want to hear a series of generalities such as we had on 23rd June.
If the Minister is satisfied, let him explain what happens to the gas which is known to disappear between the source of supply and the consumer. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central said that 2 per cent. of gas was lost——

Mr. Palmer: My hon. Friend underestimates the amount. The figure which I obtained from the Gas Council was 8 per cent.

Mr. Golding: I was a little worried about that. My hon. Friend is reported as having said 2 per cent. It was my recollection that his figure was 8 per cent. At any rate, if the figure is 8 per cent., let the Minister tell us what happens to it. Where does it go? Is there no problem? The gas boards send out 100 per cent. while the consumer receives 92 per cent. The other 8 per cent. is a problem which the Minister should be facing rather more seriously than he appears to be at present.
I throw away some points because I do not want to prolong this contribution, but I must make another point.
The Minister said:
The hon. Gentleman said that it was only when somebody was killed that a thorough investigation took place.…All explosions are investigated and any serious explosion is investigated very thoroughly, and in such instances reports are made available to my Department."—[Official Report, 23rd June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 920.]
What is a serious explosion? Recently following the distaster in my constituency a Question was asked by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) about how many gas explosions were reported in 1971 and how the figures compared with those for the two previous years. The Minister for Industry replied that only figures for serious cases were available. He added:
For the purpose of reporting, cases are regarded as serious when they cause damage, e.g. £100 or more or involve fatalities."—[Official Report, 8th May, 1972; Vol. 836, c. 264.]
The Minister will know that most gas explosions in manholes cause serious injuries to men, burnt faces, burnt arms,


and if the injury is below the groin it can cause impotence. According to the Department these are not serious cases. It is an intolerable situation when the State believes that £100 of damage is worth reporting, but if a man is crippled for life in the way I have described no report is called for. It is a most vague sense of values and most odd that a Minister can reply to a Question in this way without wondering why £100 of damage should be reported but if a man is burnt and crippled for life it is not worth reporting to the Department for more detailed consideration.
This is one of the most important aspects from the point of view of our discussions and of the Bill because it not only involves property but it is not said that it may involve life or limb. This involves families facing great personal tragedy.
The Government have already refused to make it possible for the Gas Council to compensate the victims of the explosions. The least they can do tonight is to accept the Amendment which would place on them a greater responsibility to avoid an explosion and other incidents.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I rise primarily to make sure that there can be no confusion in any report of this debate about which Newcastle Member has made certain alarmist allegations in moving the Amendment. My hon. Friend spoke of cases in the South-Eastern Gas Board area.

Mr. Golding: In the Eastern Telephone Region, which is East Anglia.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming the area. He spoke of instances in East Anglia of escapes being reported and not being located and repaired weeks, months and, I think I am correct in saying, in one case nearly two years after being reported.
I have had 30 years' practical experience of the distribution side of the gas industry dealing directly with the installation of the main, the service pipe from the meter to the main, the interior supply pipe and the fixing of appliances for the consumer. While I can speak with authority only of the Northern Gas Board, I can at least reassure my constituents

and people in the north of England that internal gas escapes between the meter and an appliance in a consumer's premises duly reported to the Northern Gas Board will be attended to, located and made safe, if not fully repaired, within minutes rather than hours, days, weeks, months or years. Certainly in the Northern Gas Board's area, and I should imagine in the majority of areas, internal escapes when reported are and should be dealt with within minutes rather than hours.
Outside escapes on gas mains, service pipes, pipes between the main and the meter, governors and other ancillary equipment, certainly in the Northern Gas Board's area, again will be located and made safe and, in the vast majority of cases, repaired permanemtly within hours. Clearly an escape on a 24-inch or 36-inch main cannot be located and repaired within minutes as the excavation of a considerable amount of ground may be involved.
I was appalled at some of the expensive language used by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Golding: I used expensive language not only because of the figures I was given this morning, which my hon. Friend can see, but because on 23rd June I read a letter from a responsible branch secretary in London reporting on the situation in East London and the time that is taken to clear gas leaks. I am concerned about the personal safety of individuals who have to work in these circumstances. My extravagant language comes from a study of compensation papers—I quoted some on 23rd June—of men who have been hurt as a result of delays in repairs. If my extravagant language has disturbed either my hon. Friend or others concerned with the gas industry I am pleased, because now we may get action.

Mr. Brown: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I am as concerned as he or anyone else that people should risk suffering injury, whether minor or severe, as a result of negligence on the part of the gas industry or its servants.
Some of the allegations made by my hon. Friend are a serious slander against many working gasmen. So serious are the allegations that in my opinion the Minister has a duty to hold an inquiry to establish the facts. Irrespective of


whether the practice of putting out to contract the job of locating and repairing gas escapes is widespread—and I believe that in certain areas it is becoming widespread—if the facts as presented by my hon. Friend have any validity the Minister should seriously consider them with a view to giving a general direction to the gas board concerned that it ought to train and employ its own labour if contractors are treating the location and repair of escapes as flippantly as my hon. Friend said they are in the south-eastern area of the Post Office. The Minister should assure us that there will be an inquiry into the facts outlined by my hon. Friend, if for no other reason than to reassure the 13 million consumers of the gas industry that gas is a safe and reliable fuel, whether it is town or natural gas.
My hon. Friend has referred to 8 per cent. unregistered gas. Unregistered gas has always been of concern to the gas industry—in private hands, as in public hands—but it is unfair for anyone to say, or by innuendo imply, that all this 8 per cent. of unregistered gas is lost in escapes. There are many ways in which unregistered gas, as it is called in the industry, is dissipated—on works, on production plant, on clearing pipes and so on. There are many ways in which 1 million cubic feet of gas can be dissipated and become unregistered gas.
My hon. Friend talked about what is a serious explosion and what is not. If an old lady turns on the gas to her oven, walks into the dining room to find a box of matches, finds that the old man has taken them into the lounge, gets them from there, walks back to the cooker and then strikes a match and gets her eyebrows singed, that is an explosion. I am sure my hon. Friend would not suggest that there should be a ministerial investigation into that kind of thing.
I worked in middle management in the industry and I hated it when old ladies were involved in that kind of accident, because it meant a mass of paper work for me, inquiry after inquiry, then a report to my boss, who had to report to his boss, and finally the chairman had to have a report.
Stringent precautions are taken at all levels in the gas industry, and I wanted

to intervene if for no other reason than to refute, on behalf of my many excolleagues in the gas industry, the serious slander by my hon. Friend against the industry.

Mr. Ronald Brown: When my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) was speaking, the Under-Secretary made great play about the regulations that were available in the Library. I have been to the Library. Only two copies were available. The Under-Secretary had had one, and I had the two remaining copies. Three copies had been there since 18th May. There should have been a few more copies for hon. Members. My hon. Friend cannot obtain a copy now because I had the only copies that were in the Library.
It is quite untrue for the Minister to say that they are regulations. He must know this because he has a copy. They are draft regulations. They are not regulations at all but are merely drafts put forward in December. Comments were requested by January. It is now July and we have not yet had the regulations. So my hon. Friend is right whichever way he goes. One would have thought that in six months it would be possible to firm up these regulations. The imputation put on this by the Under-secretary was that in some odd way my hon. Friend was in a position to obtain a set of regulations from the Library. Assuming that that were so—because there are no copies there now—what he would have got was not a set of regulations but a set of draft regulations which may or may not be the substance of the final regulations.

Mr. Emery: I know the hon. Gentleman too well to think that he would wish to mislead the House. Perhaps he would look at the debate in Committee when the undertaking was given. Of course they are not regulations. I suggested that in order to help the Committee I would take a step which had not been taken previously in that the draft regulations, before they were published—they are not normally available to the House—should be placed in the Library. It seems to me—I have argued this as a back bencher—that when regulations are going the rounds for consultation, it is somewhat strange that various bodies should be able to have them although


they are not available to hon. Members. Although it had not been done previously, it was to a degree to ensure that people had these regulations that they were placed in the Library. I should have thought that three copies were probably enough. The Library is always willing to produce more copies by photocopying if they are required.
The hon. Gentleman's argument is not one which comes within his normal honourable approach to debates in the House. The Government went to a great deal of trouble to try to ensure that these draft regulations, because of the importance of safety, should be available.
To deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point about the time element, these are regulations that will be made after the Bill is passed. Therefore, to use an absurdity, the shorter our debate, the quicker we shall get the regulations.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I appreciate the Under-Secretary's explanation. But he made a great issue of trying to give some indication to my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend had failed or was unable or unwilling to pay tribute to the fact that they are the regulations. They are draft regulations subject to alteration, and that in no way demeans my hon. Friend's argument that the present wording "so far as practicable" should not be allowed to remain.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) seemed to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I can appreciate the object of defending former colleagues.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I have not taken any case against the Amendment. My taking to task my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) was because of the expensive language he used and some of the alarmist statements he made, which in fairness I had to refute on behalf of the Northern Gas Board area.

Mr. Ronald Brown: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point and his loyalty to former colleagues. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was making that point. He

was cataloguing many experiences which, I understand, he has raised previously and very pertinently with the Department of Trade and Industry but about which nothing has been done.
4.15 a.m.
The Department of Trade and Industry, an enormous conglomerate, is a very expensive Department. It has been spending vast sums of money on research and development. Recently in a Select Committee I had occasion to question how the money was being spent. I raised the issue of fire from foam plastic as a result of which large numbers of people are being injured or killed, and the Minister's Department has been indolent and has done nothing about it. One of his staff said that the Department would have to have notice of the question. Although questions were put many times in the course of the examination of witnesses, this was the sort of answer which was given. My hon. Friend was right to pinpoint the fact that the Department has not only a specific duty but the set-up in the Department and the funds which it gets each year to deal with the matter. Therefore, my hon. Friend's stricture was justified
It is extraordinary that the Minister should put forward the argument that safety can be secured only "so far as practicable". That is not what the Factories Act, 1936, says. I had some experience as a safety officer of trying to get round the Act, so far as it was practicable, but it was never possible. The Factories Act demands that overhead cranes should be fully cased. If the overhead cables are fully cased, it is not possible to run the crane. Although I had gone a long way towards satisfying the requirements of the Act by providing protection 6 ft. on either side of the crane cab, this was not sufficient for the factory inspector. The law said that they should be properly covered. Therefore, although it was impracticable to do it, I could not get a dispensation from the inspector to the effect that I had done as much as it was practicable to do.
It is extraordinary that we should be drafting legislation which provides that there is a point beyond which it is considered impracticable to take action. But assuming that the Government draft the legislation in a sloppy way, how does one determine what is practicable? Who


is the arbiter? Is it the Industrial Relations Court? Are we to ask Sir John Donaldson to advise us on whether it is practicable? If somebody is hurt, who sues whom? Does the person who is hurt sue the Gas Corporation or the contractor who put in the installation? Before we can accept the drafting in the Bill, the Minister is bound to tell us who is culpable. I read what he said on 23rd June, but he did not make the position clear. He fudged it. Somebody must determine what the corporation is responsible for and how far it can go in ensuring the safety of life and limb. The Minister must explain why in this Bill he can argue a contrary a case to that is argued under the Factories Act.
I can see nothing in the Amendment which would prejudice Clause 31. I do not think the words in the Bill are meaningful and the Minister has not defined who can make them meaningful. If they are taken out, that will leave the possibility of the corporation being sued. Surely that is what we are trying to provide. If the corporation is negligent, it should be sued. But if it can pray in aid Clause 31 as drafted, there is no possibility of having justice from the corporation if it is guilty of negligence as long as it can show that any precautions taken were "so far as practicable".
I can recall the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1961—the non-feasance Act as it was called—when it was alleged that people who were hurt in falling over paving stones in the street would be able to sue the local authority for the injury they received. But we have found that it is almost impossible to sue under that Act. It is necessary to prove that the distance that the kerbstones or the paving stones are out of line is unreasonable and the result of a High Court action in 1968 made that almost impossible.
The Clause is drafted in a similar way. While it pays lip service to the idea that safety should be important, it goes all the way to ensure that the corporation will be in the best position to get out of its responsibilities if something goes wrong. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. It is perfectly reasonable. Far from the regulations being invalidated by it, I believe that they would be strengthened. This may be

only a marginal case, but to reject the Amendment could lead to injustice for someone seeking redress for his injuries.

Mr. Garrett: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) should be congratulated in seeking to make this Amendment to such a comprehensive Bill. I apologise to hon. Members who were not members of the Committee because they may find the debate dull, boring and tedious. But we are trying to make improvements to the Bill and this is one facet of safety that has not been tackled in it.
That is disturbing because other aspects of industrial life are covered by safety legislation in providing an inquiry in the event of death or serious injury. Legislation provides for inquiries into tragedies in the mining and quarrying industries. A procedure is laid down in the event of an aircraft accident and similar provisions exist to deal with collisions at sea, or if a ship catches fire or is subjected to other hazards at sea or in dock.
Yet the large industry which is the subject of the Bill is not covered by such legislation. The Amendment would give the necessary cover for that facet of the safety regulations. I do not believe that such cover exists for the electricity industry. If it does not, the industry should seek such cover.
The regulations were the subject of contention some time ago. I regret to say that I too have never read them. If the Minister could give an assurance or guarantee that the Amendment would be covered by the draft regulations, he could shorten the debate. In that event, there would be no need for us to press the Amendment.

Mr. Emery: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to Amendment No. 23 or Amendment No. 24?

Mr. Garrett: I am referring to Amendment No. 24. I was hoping that the Minister would give us some assistance, because he or his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) may have read regulations that we unfortunately have not read.
To sum up, the new subsection should be inserted and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme should be congratulated on the devoted way in which he has pursued this aspect


of safety. I spent much of my working life in the chemical industry. The type of gas we are talking about is child's play compared with gases in that industry. I realise the importance of regulations which make it obligatory for employers and employees to operate safety factors not only to their own advantage but to the advantage of the industry.
My participation in the debate would end on a much happier note if the Minister gave us assurances on the points I have raised.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I apologise most sincerely for keeping you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the staff of the House here for even one minute longer at this time of night. If we reflect for a moment on the number of policemen, messengers, refreshment staff, engineers, Hansard reporters and the rest involved in keeping the House going, we see that it is an extraordinary state of affairs.
The Amendment is ridiculous. Clearly nobody, not even a Secretary of State, could protect the public absolutely. We cannot attempt to legislate all possibility of accidents out of existence.
I hope it will be recorded in HANSARD that such is the degree of irresponsibility on the Opposition benches that three or four Members between four and five o'clock in the morning have talked for over an hour——

Mr. Garrett: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give way?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: No, I will not.
They have talked for an hour and a half at this time of the morning on the subject simply of removing the words "so far as practicable".

Mr. Kaufman: I hope that my constituents in Ardwick, particularly my constituents in the Pink Bank Lane area, will draw full satisfaction from the fact that a Conservative Member has said that it is wrong for me at half-past four in the morning to raise a case which is causing the utmost anxiety in an area of my constituency. I hope they will note that that is what the hon. and gallant Conservative Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) think about my taking the opportunity to air something

about which I have received the most worried representations.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) for giving me the opportunity at half-past four in the morning to raise in the House a matter which I have pledged to my constituents I would raise in the House.

Mr. Garrett: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester was once on the Committee considering a Gas Bill and delayed it for a considerable time while he discussed the possibilities of underground gas coming to the surface and gassing his cows? Is that irresponsible?

Mr. Kaufman: It is not for me to question the motives of any Member. All I will say is that this is Parliament, the place where we raise the grievances of our constituents. That is what we are sent here to do.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Totally bogus.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme for enabling me to fulfil my pledge to 15 of my constituents who came to see me a few days ago to voice their deep concern about the situation which has arisen in their neighbourhood. I shall not go fully into the matter because gas is only one aspect of it. However, the complaint which I received from the 15 people who came to see me, and a petition signed by 370 people in the area which I received this week in the House, shows the kind of thing which people are worried about. I should like the Minister to look into the matter.
4.30 a.m.
The situation is that during recent months lorries have been travelling from a brickworks in my constituency to a tip, and travelling over a part of the road under which lies a gas pipe. The frequency of the journeys of the lorries and their weight are such that my constituents have deep fears that the gas pipe will be opened up, gas will escape, there will be an accident and injury will be inflicted upon them.
The people in the area are no strangers to tragedy, because only a few months ago a small boy was drowned in a pool in the brickworks. The gas pipe, and the


area which my constituents are concerned about, is at the junction of Santley Street and Pink Bank Lane. I have taken the matter up with the owners of the works, from whom I have received assurances which I trust will be fulfilled completely. I have taken the matter up with Manchester Corporation, the Manchester City Police, the Department of the Environment and the gas board. I received this week a letter from the gas board saying that it is looking into the matter. I have no doubt that it will do so.
However, I should like the Minister to assure me that he will take cognisance of the situation, because I promised my constituents when they came to see me that I would raise the matter in the House as their representative. I am grateful for the opportunity to fulfil a pledge which I made to a group of people who sent me here to represent them on these and other matters.

Mr. Emery: I was going to respond to the questions which have been put to me, but perhaps it will assist the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) if I respond immediately to his last contribution. I do not know of the incident. I do not know whether I should have known.

Mr. Kaufman: No.

Mr. Emery: I am glad to be assured. There is no way I would have known. However, if the hon. Gentleman will send me details of the matter in a slightly fuller form than that raised in the partial Adjournment debate which he has had on the Floor of the House, I shall look into it and take whatever action is appropriate.

Mr. Kaufman: I trust the Minister will agree that it was perfectly right for me to raise the matter in this way, even at this hour.

Mr. Emery: It would be for the Chair to inform the hon. Gentleman if he had been out of order. I would never assume, subsume or anything else that I should take over your responsibility, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I thought it right to intervene as there are certain aspects of the Amendment which deserve to be understood before anyone from the Opposition Front Bench speaks on them.
I shall not go over matters tediously because I have made the position clear. I was accused of not fulfilling an undertaking I gave in Committee that draft regulations should be put in the House. I did not say that they would be regulations; I said they would be draft regulations. Of course I accept the apology given by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and in turn I am sorry that the documents were produced late.

Mr. Golding: I repeat my apology to the hon. Gentleman. Had I received the full documents in time, naturally I would not have made the comments about him that I did.

Mr. Emery: I accept the apology. This was a misunderstanding and of course tempers rise in such circumstances. It is of the greatest importance that when Ministers give undertakings they should fulfill them to the full. This is why I immediately instituted an inquiry and was able to give the hon. Gentleman my assurance.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) raised the question of inquiries, dealt with under Amendment No. 24. I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that he is not correct about the figures of deaths and damage to property. I shall look again at the parliamentary reply he quoted, but the statistics he gave covered all explosions causing casualties requiring hospital treatment. The idea that we do not take things very seriously—that we regard these occurrences as important only if they kill people—is not correct. I think what I have said about the statistics goes a long way to meeting the point put by the hon. Member for Wallsend.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) made a number of points for which I thank him, and of course I respond to what he said. It would not be right to give the impression that the gas industry or the men working in it are not immensely concerned with safety, because they are. The hon. Member knows from first-hand experience, and I know from my own experience, the amount of trouble that is taken, and rightly taken—I do not put it forward as a marvellous thing to do, because of course that is right—to ensure maximum safety and to deal with


problems of gas leaks raised by consumers.
Certainly there are problems. With 13 million consumers it would be surprising if now and again something did not go "according to Hoyle". But I stress that the Ministers, the Department, the boards, the consultative councils, the managements and the whole staff all go out of their way to ensure that all the precautions possible are taken.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Although the point has rightly been made about how careful those people are, they cannot do more than is practicable.
Would my hon. Friend repeat this point when the hon. Member for Manchester Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) returns? The hon. Gentleman has now left the Chamber and is evidently not anxious to hear the Minister's reply to the point about which his constituents are so greatly concerned. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Emery: I do not wish to defend the hon. Member for Ardwick but I gave him an assurance. That is all he was interested in. He was here and listened to that.
I am coming to the absolute aspect. I may have inadvertently said something to the Committee which could be misinterpreted. I said that the draft regulations I placed in the Library would be made under the new Act and not under the 1948 Act. It is perhaps possible, in the interests of speed, that we might even lay them under the 1948 Act. That would help the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown).

Mr. Ronald Brown: I appreciated that it was a slip of the tongue on the part of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Emery: Until recently these regulations were not thought to be necessary. There was criticism that the Department was not concerned.
The gas loss is the last thing I want. What happens to the 8 per cent.? The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West dealt with part of this matter. Not all the loss is due to leaks. Part of the loss occurs because of the difference in metering. As consumers' meters age, they tend to operate more slowly. The consumers

obtain some benefit as the meters get older. The amount is not large. A number of reasons have been given for the loss. That reason, however, was not mentioned during the debate.
Amendment No. 23 would require that the purpose of any gas safety regulation which the Secretary of State may make should be to afford the public complete security from danger. This is where I come to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles).
Notwithstanding the apparent effect of the Amendment, absolute safety is unobtainable. It is unrealistic to require or expect regulations to result in its attainment. We have discussed certain types of safety regulations, such as fencing or the protection around cranes, where if certain steps are taken absolute protection can be assured. If there is a net, no hammer below a certain weight will fall through it. When one makes regulations concerning a pipe passing through a wall, a certain encasement is required to deal with normal, or any, settlement that might arise.
If there is a physical factor which no one knows about, the requirements of the regulations will not apply. No one can have safety regulations that will protect one from a fool, such as the person who strikes the match, having left the tap open. No regulation can protect one from that.
The concept that one can have or require in legislation absolute safety is an attainment which it would not be sensible or reasonable to put into the Bill. No gas installation is proof against misuse by the consumer or unauthorised acts by third parties. 4.45 a.m.
I refer particularly to Professor Morton's findings. He rightly said in his Report on the Safety of Natural Gas as a Fuel that
in correctly designed, installed, maintained and operated appliances gas can be used with safety provided that the safety precautions necessary continue to be observed.
He spelt this out clearly. No fuel, whether town gas, natural gas, electricity, paraffin or even coal, is safe if it is mishandled. Surely it would be wrong for the House to accept an Amendment which might lead anyone to suppose


that absolute satety could be attained as a result. While I understand that this has been a useful aspect of the debate, to try to write in that degree of absoluteness would not be sensible.
That last Amendment is meant to assist the decision on regulations. This Amendment is defective and ought not to be accepted. It calls for reports and we are not certain what sort of reports. I thought it was put down as a probing exercise to allow this debate. It is not clear to whom the reports would be made. The Secretary of State would not know whether there had been a death or personal injury arising from leakage of gas unless some-one told him. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman would not want to press the Amendment because of its drafting defects and I have taken it to be a probing Amendment which would allow us to have the sort of debate we have had.

Mr. Golding: I put a number of detailed points, which are of great importance, about the type of testing that is taking place. I would like answers to these points because people I have con sulted since 23rd June have made the point that the Minister on that day hid behind generalities. I am not pressing him now, but in some way or other, perhaps by Parliamentary Question, we would like to know more about what the Gas Council is doing——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a second speech.

Mr. Emery: I take the point. I am not trying to hide behind generalities, because I believe it is right and proper that the information should be available to the House. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will have all the points he has raised about safety and testing looked at by my Department. I will study this and write in detail to him and then we can see what further steps we can take.

Mr. Palmer: I think I should say something in answer to the remarkable intervention by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). I do not think he has appeared in our debates before but we are glad to see him. He talks about our wasting time. No doubt he is anxious to get to

bed—we all are—but we have a duly. I do not want to make heavy weather of his intervention but when I first entered this House in another parliamentary incarnation, as the Member for Wimbledon, not the last but certainly the first Labour Member for that constituency, one of my first experiences of being up at night was in connection with the original Gas Bill. The late Mr. Brendan Bracken was leading for the Opposition and he kept the House up not for one night but for two nights.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not talk so lightly. We did not ask for a Bill of this importance, with its 50 Clauses and 8 Schedules, to be brought on late at night. We would much prefer to discuss the Bill at a civilised hour. There were 27 sittings in Standing Committee.

Mr. Garrett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was because of the co-operation of Opposition Members that there were only 27 sittings in Committee? There could well have been 47 sittings.

Mr. Palmer: Yes. This is a matter of considerable complexity concerning the entire reorganisation of the gas industry and the abolition of area boards. However, despite the fact that the Bill is being discussed through the night, we must do our duty as an Opposition.
The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) for the persistence with which he has pursued the matter. He has rendered a great public service. My hon. Friend feels strongly on the issue, not only because of his important constituency interest but also because of his very close connection with the Post Office and its employees. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point of view, because I have an equally close connection with the electricity supply industry.
The problem that Post Office employees face is paralleled by the recent experience of employees in the electricity supply industry, where natural gas, particularly because of the way it can leak more easily than the old town gas, is pressing its way through the soil and moving into substations and underground boxes. In the last year two or three electricity supply employees have lost their lives from this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown), with his close connections with the gas industry, put the point of view of gas employees. I do not blame or condemn gas employees. It is not their fault. It is often the fault of the old apparatus or pipes with which they have to contend.
The difficulty remains with the Minister. I accept what he said about his concern; I believe that in a personal way he meant it. However, the Minister and the Gas Council have to some extent tended to minimise the problem. The last annual report of the Gas Council does not mention the problem—a remarkable omission.
When we were discussing capital expenditure I said that the gas industry would have to spend a great deal on replacing the old, leaky networks that could not stand up to the impact of natural gas. The Minister said that he did not think it would cost very much. I disagree entirely. If the networks are to be replaced the Gas Corporation must spend a great deal of money. Because the industry is reluctant to spend more than it has already incurred in bringing about this great changeover, it is taking considerable risks in the insulation of the old gas pipes.
The Minister was right in qualifying the figures I gave. My figures were supplied, because of a Parliamentary Question I asked, in a letter from the Chairman of the Gas Council. After he gave me the figure of between 7 and 8 per cent. for gas lost, he said that some loss was due to differences in the conditions of measurement but that was fairly marginal. In the last paragraph of the letter the chairman said that the figures related to the whole of the gas industry's transmission and distribution systems and arose mainly from the distribution of gas to consumers through the low-pressure systems. That is the point we have made on several occasions.
It is up to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to decide whether he wishes to press the Amendment to a Division; I do not presume to advise him on that. Our debates have had considerable publicity. The first debate made the headlines, some of them sensational. It has been brought home

to the gas industry that the public expect it to do better in future than it has done in the past. The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend for his persistence and energy.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order. I am informed by an hon. Member that during my absence from the Chamber the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) alleged that I had not remained in the House to hear the Minister's reply to the point I raised. I hope the Minister will confirm that I was present.

Mr. Emery: I have already done so.

Mr. Golding: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35

MACHINERY FOR SETTLING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ETC.

Mr. Emery: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 29, line 42, after 'including', insert:
'the training and education of such persons, and'.
The Amendment follows an undertaking which I gave to the Standing Committee in response to an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). It is self-explanatory; hon. Members who were on the Committee will know what it is about.

Mr. Palmer: We are much obliged. The Amendment makes a considerable improvement in the drafting of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 39, line 22, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 27, in line 43, leave out "Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.—[Mr. Varley.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

THE CONSULTATIVE BODIES: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 49, line 13, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 29, in page 50, line 19, leave out first 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.

No. 30, in line 19, leave out second 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers''.—[Mr. Varley.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

GAS SUPPLYB CODE

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 54, line 40, after 'meter', insert:
'(whether a prepayment meter or otherwise)'.
I move the Amendment for a number of reasons but, in view of the lateness of the hour, I shall not develop the powerful case in support of it that I could. Clearly, it is the type of Amendment that any reasonable Minister will see fit to accept. It may be, of course, that the hon. Gentle man will indicate his willingness to accept it, in which event I shall not need to detain the House——

Mr. Ronald Brown: I notice that my hon. Friend's Amendment refers to "a prepayment meter or otherwise". Do the words "or otherwise" refer to the type of meter that a landlord installs and by means of which he makes a surcharge on the gas supplied?

Mr. Robert C. Brown: No. The type of meter to which my hon. Friend refers is a check meter. It is a medium for reselling gas. It is dealt with in a later Amendment.
The need for my Amendment was brought to my attention in the first place by a letter from a constituent of mine. I know that hon. Members frequently announce in this House that they have received 150 letters on a subject. I did not have anything like that number. However, my post reached double figures on the subject of the freedom of the individual to choose whether to have a

pre-payment meter or an ordinary one——

Mr. Emery: It might assist the hon. Gentleman if I indicated that I should be most favourable towards his Amendment.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am grateful to the Minister. In view of that, I shall keep to my promise about not detaining the House.
However, perhaps I might read the most telling letter on the subject that I have received:
I am a widowed constituent of yours living in a council flat heated by gas fires. I am appalled to hear that in the Gas Bill it is proposed that the Gas Board will have the power to make me have a quarterly meter. If this happens I do not know how I will manage, since at present when the money I allow myself each day runs out in my slot meter I can and do go to bed, but if I have to have a quarterly meter I will never manage, because there is no means of telling just how much I will have spent in the day, and at the end of the quarter there will no doubt that I will probably have my gas cut off because I will not be able to pay the bill.
It might be argued that that widow is not receiving the type of benefits that she obviously needs if she has to write that type of letter. But, broadly speaking, I am concerned about, first, the freedom of the individual to have the sort of meter he chooses and, secondly, the fact that there is a considerable amount of freedom at stake if the Gas Corporation determines that at one fell swoop prepayment meters are to be abolished and replaced by quarterly ones.

Mr. Emery: I shall be brief. I shall be delighted to accept the Amendment, but, having said that, I must reiterate two important things said in Committee.
There is a considerable problem of theft from this sort of meter, and I would not want it to be thought that there should be encouragement of people to move away from the credit meter, because it encourages a problem of theft which is of considerable concern not only to the Gas Council, gas boards and Consumer Council but to individual customers. The hon. Gentleman would not want anything to stimulate that. It is essential to put the point.
I do not interpret the Amendment as implying any presumption that prepayment meters will be the norm and anything else the exception. If that was the


implication, I would not accept the Amendment, and, equally, the hon. Member would not be moving it.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am glad that the Minister accepts my Amendment and I am sure, he has no fear of an increase in the use of prepayment meters, which has dropped from 66 per cent. to 40 per cent. in 20 years.

Mr. Emery: I understand that it is the hon. Gentleman's intention to underline the fact that it may, according to circumstances, be one kind of meter or another. In that spirit I am prepared to accept the Amendment, because I fully understand the problems of pensioners and those with financial problems who are unable to budget properly and who want prepayment meters so that when the gas runs out they go to bed. This is the sort of sympathetic consideration the House should give, even at this hour. I have pleasure, on behalf of the Government, in accepting the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Palmer: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 56, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
'( ) It shall be the duty of the Corporation to take proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction against any person reselling gas at a price exceeding the maximum price fixed under this paragraph, and in the event of such person being found guilty of an offence the court shall impose a fine of fifty pounds for the first offence and one hundred pounds for any subsequent offence and an order made by the court for the amount of the excess shall be refunded to the person to whom the gas was resold'.
The morning is advancing and this is an important Amendment, capable of much expansion because it deals with a human problem, but I intend to be mercifully brief. It attempts to deal with a situation which is nothing short of a scandal, which is continuing: exploitation by landlord of tenants or sub-tenants, who are usually poor people, by resale of gas. The landlord pays one price to the gas board and the tenant a much higher price to the landlord for the gas.
Examples have been brought to the attention of hon. Members in all parts of the House of gross exploitation in these circumstances. The fact that the problem exists was recognised a number of years ago. The first time I remember the meter being discussed in a tactical fashion

was in 1957 when I was on a Standing Committee which was considering the Electricity Bill which became the Electricity Act, 1958. The Conservative Government of that day accepted that there was a problem here and certain words were drawn up. In my opinion, that was the first time these words were inserted into a nationalised industry Statute. The words that appear in the Bill are the standard words now used.
The part of the Schedule dealing with the matter under discussion appears on page 56 under the heading "Resale of gas supplied". Paragraph 12(1) and (2) is all right from our point of view. Sub-paragraph (1) provides:
The Corporation shall from time to time fix maximum prices at which gas supplied by them may be resold, and shall publish the prices so fixed in such manner as in their opinion will secure adequate publicity therefore.
Sub-paragraph (2) provides:
Different prices may be fixed under this paragraph in different classes of cases which may be defined by reference to areas, tariffs applicable to gas supplied by the Corporation, or any other relevant circumstances.
That is perfectly reasonable and flexible.
However, sub-paragraph (3) is woefully inadequate to deal with this social problem. Experience has proved that to be so. The general sense of it is that if a tenant or sub-tenant is exploited and suffers by being overcharged through the resale of gas, it is left for the tenant or sub-tenant to proceed against the landlord. We all know that that is an impossible state of affairs. It is very difficult for any normal human relationship to be maintained after a tenant or subtenant has taken a landlord to court and accused him of doing something illegal. The result is that few cases have been brought under the legislation.
I know the difficulties. The standard wording is feeble and has resulted in no improvement. As I said earlier, many of those who are affected in this way are poor people. They are sometimes famililies, but more often they are single, elderly people living alone.
We have tried to get over that difficulty in the Amendment. I do not suggest that the wording is perfect from the legal point of view. However, we feel that we go much closer to finding a solution to the problem than the standard words which appear in the Bill. We suggest


that if an offence has been committed responsibility for enforcement should be placed on the Gas Corporation. If the Gas Corporation has evidence that a landlord is abusing the arrangements by which a proper and fair price is decided for resale and is exploiting a tenant or sub-tenant, we suggest that the Corporation should proceed against the apparently guilty party.
The Amendment would provide that
in the event of such person being found guilty of an offence the court shall impose a fine of fifty pounds"—
when it comes to what the fines should be we are fairly open, but we thought £50 was not unreasonable in terms of money values today—
for the first offence and one hundred pounds for any subsequent offence and an order made by the court for the amount of the excess shall be refunded"—
there is a printer's error there; it should read,
to be refunded to the person to whom the gas was resold.
5.15 a.m.
I cannot see very much objection to this kind of procedure. I am sure that it would work and would be effective. No doubt the Gas Corporation or its new regional officers will not want the responsibility. They may feel that it is not something for them and that the present arrangement is more satisfactory because they do not want to be bothered with it, but my answer to that would be that the present arrangements, as the experience of the nationalised service industries has proved, are a dead letter. They are not effective at all.
In a spirit of great reasonableness we are anxious to overcome a real social problem. We suggest that the Amendment would solve the difficulty. It would have some teeth, and we suggest that this is a responsibility which a public authority should properly take on its shoulders.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: It is not my intention to detain the House for long. I feel keenly enough about the Amendment to say that if the Minister is not prepared to accept it we should divide the House on it.
My recollection of the fleecing of the public by landlords—and that is the only

way in which I can describe it—goes back 30 years. I recall, as a youngster in the industry, installing check meters and having to ask landlords what they wanted the check meters set at. This was in the days when the old Newcastle and Gates-head Gas Company was selling 20 cu. ft. of gas for 1d. through a pre-payment meter, and through the credit meter, which was the medium of purchase of the landlord, 25 cu. ft. of gas for 1d., and the common reply was "Set it at 6 cu. ft. for 1d."
That was not fleecing; it was extortion. The same kind of thing is going on today. That is why I am glad that the Government have seen fit to put in the Schedule the kind of languauge that one sees there, and I sincerely hope that they will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Emery: I have never heard the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) move an Amendment which he would not describe as sweet reasonableness, but I accept that he could have made a very much longer case on this one.
I accept immediately that this is a difficult problem, and I do not want to minimise it, but I think I should remind the House of what was said by my right hon. Friend when he was Minister for Industry:
Suggestions have been made that charging more than the statutory maximum price should be made a criminal offence, but I have decided that legislation to this effect would not be justified as it would be unlikely to be significantly more effective than the present law. But I am in touch with the consultative councils and the electricity boards about mounting a publicity campaign designed to ensure that those concerned are made better aware of the maximum prices laid down and the present means of enforcement."—[Official Report, 28th February, 1972; Vol. 832, cc. 31–2.]
My hon. Friend and I have lent our support to try to ensure that there will be mounted a full and proper campaign of advertising to make the present regulations know nto all. I am hopeful that this will have the sort of effects and results which the hon. Gentleman would like to see.
The problems in the Amendment are very much more serious than the hon. Gentleman might have thought. First, it would have a very major technical defect


which, even if I accepted the overall principle, would not allow me to accept the Amendment. In particular, it omits to make over-charging an offence. It provides for the
order made by the court
to be "refunded" to the buyer, though what is obviously intended is that the over-charge should be refunded.
There are a number of other problems. If over-charging were to be made a criminal offence it would be necessary to collect sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Reliable evidence about the setting of the meter over relevant past periods, the amount of gas used—or, for that matter, electricity, because we should be tempted to apply this in both cases—and the amount of money refunded by the landlord would be difficult to prove and, at times, hard to come by.
Reports of over-charging would, in the first place, have to come from users, and evidence from them would almost certainly be necessary to secure a conviction. It would be virtually impossible to obscure the identity of complainants, and they might well be reluctant to come forward for fear of some form of reprisal in certain instances. The unwillingness of consumers to use the existing procedures for fear of reprisal is one of the main arguments advanced in favour of making over-charging a criminal offence. That is not necessarily the argument which the hon. Gentleman has propounded, but information has come to my Department from a number of other sources making suggestions for action to regularise this matter.

Mr. Palmer: The Under-Secretary says that it would be difficult to get people to come forward. Surely it is even more difficult to get people to come forward under the present arrangements, by which they have to take the entire responsibility on their shoulders.

Mr. Emery: I understand that. But we are trying to publicise the situation to correct it at source. I cannot be convinced that any sort of criminal or moral enforcement procedure would be very much more effective than that which we

have at present. I am trying to set out with an advertising campaign with the Consumers' Councils being brought in over this matter.
Although the hour is late, I could continue. There are a number of other problems about over-charging. The phrase
a court of competent jurisdiction
is apt for civil actions but not for crimes, where the Bill should state whether the offence is triable summarily or on indictment, or both. I only wanted to outline to the House the problems which exist and the technical defects of the Amendment.
I find myself in some considerable difficulty—I do not mind admitting this—about the best way of dealing with this matter. But we are projected on a campaign and a considerable amount of preparatory work has been done for this. After a period of nine months, or perhaps a year, I shall want to see what effect this campaign has had. If after this it still appears to be a major problem, I shall be as interested as the Opposition in trying to find ways of overcoming it.
Therefore, because of what we are starting out on and because of the technical faults in the Amendment, I hope that what I have said will go a considerable way to deal with the fears outlined by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown).

Mr. Ronald Brown: I appreciate the feelings of sympathy expressed by the Minister, but I am bound to say to him that we have had this problem for years. We had publicity about it when I was in local government. I tried for 20 years to solve it, but it was impossible. It has always fallen on one issue—the fact that there was no power in the Act to deal with it. The local government associations have petitioned Governments of both parties to do something about it. I have been on deputations to what is now the Department of the Environment in an endeavour to get powers given to local authorities to take action.
There are many cases not only of over-charging and harassment but of


tenants paying for their gas through the meter, the landlord does not pay it to the board and decamps leaving the tenant without any gas. The local authority is not able to get the gas supply reconnected until the money is paid. The tenant has already paid the money, but the local authority has no power to pay it. The result is that the tenant has no gas. I have a constituent who has had no gas for three months because the gas board will not connect the supply. She cannot pay, social security will not pay and the person involved will not pay.
It is no good the Minister saying "I am a good Minister, I will watch the situation closely. We shall give the matter publicity." It has been given publicity for years. If the hon. Gentleman says that the Government's publicity will be different from former publicity, I say that I do not think it can be. I appreciate what he is trying to do, but I do not think it is sufficient.
The Amendment is about right. If it is not drafted properly, I hope that the Minister will have it drafted correctly. The people in the social service departments are harassing their own associations to get something like it put into the Acts which they are having to operate. I feel strongly about this matter. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment, I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on it, otherwise local authorities will think that we have taken no notice of their complaints and urging to get the problem of harassment put to rest. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will reconsider his decision on the Amendment.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Minister has done his best. He has made sweet-sounding noises to try to get us to with draw the Amendment. But if he expects us to accept that if landlords will not play the game in the next 12 months as they have not done for generations——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken already. He must not make a second speech.

Mr. Brown: If the drafting of the Amendment is imperfect, and if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to use his Department's

expertise to produce an Amendment——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a second speech. The Minister has sat down.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. Palmer: The Under-Secretary, with perfect sincerity, has given us an assurance that he recognises that there is a problem and that he will do something about it. I accept his sincerity but he has not always been the Minister and he will not be the Minister for ever. I have heard that kind of speech before in the House which says that the Minister recognises that the problem exists and that something will be done. I agree that there is a great deal of public feeling on this not only among consumers of gas and electricity but among local authorities also.
Surely there is sufficient evidence available to the Ministry to enable an Amendment to be drawn up and brought forward in a competent form. I make no apology for not having the exact lawyer's wording in our Amendment. But if the Minister accepts the principle, as it would appear that he has, what is to prevent a suitable Amendment from being brought forward in time for consideration in the House of Lords? That could be done.
If the Under-Secretary will give us the assurance that he will look at the matter again with a view to an Amendment being made in another place we will not press the matter to a Division. Without that assurance we must divide the House because in doing so we are reflecting popular opinion.

Mr. Emery: I have made it clear that, while I understand the problem, it would be wrong to suggest that I understand the need for legislation. That is not what I have said. I cannot accept the Amendment because it is defective, and I cannot accept the principle of this type of Amendment while we are undertaking a publicity campaign In view of the way that it is being co-ordinated and the amount of trouble that is being taken with it, it would be wrong of me to give the sort of assurance the hon. Member is seeking. I realise what he wants but I cannot comply with it.

Questions put, That the Amendment be made: —

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 77, line 15, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers'.

No. 36, in line 16, leave out 'Consultative' and insert 'Consumers'.—[Mr. Varley.].

Mr. Emery: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 77, line 20, after 'regulations', insert 'rules'.
This Amendment remedies a very small defect in the Bill which has only just come to light. There are three, not two categories of subordinate legislation to which the modification made by paragraph 19 of Schedule 6 should apply. This is why it has been altered.

Amendment agreed to.

5.43 a.m.

Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is only fair to say that the Gas Council has been waiting since about 1966

The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 69.

Division No. 266.]
AYES
[5.35 a.m.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Garrett, W. E.
Varley, Eric G.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Kaufman, Gerald



Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Concannon, J. D.
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. John Golding and




Mr. Tom Pendry




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hawkins, Paul
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rost, Peter


Benyon, W.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Sharples, Sir Richard


Biggs-Davidson, John
James, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Boscawen, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Bowden, Andrew
Kinsey, J. R.
Sinclair, Sir George



Le Merchant, Spencer
Soref, Harold


Bray, Ronald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Speed, Keith


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Marsden, F.
Sproat, Iain


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chapman, Sydney
More, Jasper
Stokes, John


Cockeram, Eric
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Cooke, Robert
Murton, Oscar
Sutcliffe, John


Crouch, David
Neave, Airey
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Normanton, Tom
Tebbit, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Osborn, John
Tugendhat, Christopher


Emery, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil
Waddington, David


Fidler, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fortescue, Tim
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Raison, Timothy
Worsley, Marcus


Gray, Hamish
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)



Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Marcus Fox

or 1967 to get its legislation. I cannot think of any nationalised industry which has had to wait quite so long for its legislation.

Therefore, it is right that I should pay tribute to those many men who have built up the Gas Council and the organisations under the area boards, which in some ways will disappear under the Act. Eighteen years ago most people believed that, with only the carbonisation of coal as its method of production, the gas industry was doomed to a slow decline. Under leadership which was both brilliant and highly commercial, the industry was all but re-born. High speed gas hit the country with a marketing impact of the first order. All this was founded first on the new feedstock position. There was methane imported and shipped from the Sahara, with new reforming processes using naptha, a light distillate from oil refining. Then came the real revolution, the major discovery of hydrocarbons under the British section of the Continental Shelf—North Sea gas was upon us.

Thus the Bill vitally alters the structure of the industry to allow modern management to control, influence and expand in an efficient and financially profitable organisation the great potential of the gas


industry. It also accepted the facts of life that from a coal-based manufacturing industry it has become a pipe-gridded distributing and marketing organisation. The Bill recognises the consumer's place in this complex, and a new and, I believe, reinforced structure of consumer protection is introduced. I am delighted that both sides of the House have been able to co-operate in bringing that about.

The Bill recognises the power of the industry, and the rôle it must play in the whole energy field of the United Kingdom. Some may try to criticise by saying that a State monopoly has been strengthened. Yes, the strengthening is there. But this Government believe in a mixed economy. They believe in a strong private sector, but similarly, with a proper understanding of the benefits for the nation, they wish to ensure that those industries in the public sector are as efficient as possible, well managed and profitable. That is the structure which the Bill sets out to allow to be provided.

It is only in this way that consumers of gas, those who work in that industry, and the nation as a whole will benefit. That is why a more centralised management structure has seemed right: that is why a central purchasing organisation for North Sea gas is likely to ensure the best benefit for all present and potential consumers; that is why we have continued to allow a Gas Corporation participation in North Sea exploration as long as this is operated sensibly within the confines of commercial prudence; that is why we have gone out to ensure in the Bill, combining with other legislation, that these monopoly powers shall not be misused. That is why the Government believe that they should provide an overall structure which will allow the Gas Corporation to be able to maximise this massive asset and to provide a structure for the industry which we think can work for at least the next 25 years.

For these and hundreds of other reasons that we have had in the hours upon hours of debate in Committee, I commend the Bill. I thank those hon. Members who served on the Committee, particularly my hon. Friends for their full understanding of the Bill in silent participation. I am also grateful for the way in which, after one or two problems,

the Opposition were able to help in perhaps making the Bill better than it was on Second Reading.

5.47 a.m.

Mr. Varley: I can hear the sighs of relief on the Government benches as we reach the final stages of the Bill. If we have taken six months rather than the six days which would have been necessary just to transfer the powers of the Gas Council to the new Gas Corporation, the Government have only themselves to blame. Last January, when the Bill began its weary passage through the House, we offered a deal. I said on 27th January:
If the Government say that they intend to abandon Clauses 7 and 16 and have a total strategy for employment prospects within the gas industry, we will help the Bill through Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 1700.]
However, the Government pursued their folly, and what would have been a routine Bill had contentious Clauses in it and embodied some of the Government's dogma. That was why we had to give the Bill the detailed scrutiny it received.
I think we have done a good job. There were 26 full sittings of the Standing Committee, and one was abandoned because the Committee showed personal kindness to me in a family problem. We had 1,106 columns of Hansard over 15 weeks. So the Bill was well scrutinised. I pay tribute to those of my hon. Friends who served on the Committee whose industry and pertinacity ensured that the Bill received the detailed examination it required. It was a small Committee. On the Opposition side there were only seven of us. Half way through the Committee stage I took over Front Bench responsibility, and I may be pardoned if I think of my hon. Friends as the "magnificent seven". I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer), who has been of invaluable help to me in these proceedings.
What is more, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, we have succeeded in improving the Bill a little, although there are still parts of it that we detest, and any incoming Labour Government will have to look at them very carefully indeed. Our keenest scrutiny will be reserved for the way in which Clause 7 is operated,


with the pernicious powers it gives to the Secretary of State to meddle with and interfere in the Gas Corporation's workings, order it about, submit it to humiliating interventions and pry into its activities. Clause 7 was the Eden-Ridley Clause. Those hon. Gentlemen have departed. We hope the new Minister and the new Under-Secretary will thrust this legacy into a very dusty pigeonhole.
There is one lesson to be derived from the protracted debates that the Government would do well to learn. We are told that shortly Parliament is to be asked to consider the Coal Industry Bill. If the Government are going to introduce a Bill they should not tag on—if they wish to get it through Parliament quickly—some of the Clauses we have seen in this Bill.
At this stage and hour, whatever the differences between the two sides, it is the duty of all of us in Parliament to wish the new Gas Corporation, its management, and all those who work in it, a bright future, with the reputation for zeal and innovation which they have earned.
On 30th June, 1972, I said that the gas industry was the fastest growing industry in Britain; with its new scope and its new image it can be a pacemaker for the future. It is in that spirit that we on the Front Bench on this side at any rate take leave of this Bill today.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: In contributing to the Third Reading debate, I declare my interest.
As a member of the General Municipal Workers Union, the trade union which organises the majority of the employees in the gas industry, I want to seek from the Minister five assurances on points which worry my union and colleagues in the industry.
So far as Clause 7 and hiving off are concerned, can the Minister give us a firm assurance that the Government have no proposals that the new Gas Corporation shall divest itself of any profitable functions immediately after vesting date?
Second, on the question of pricing policy, can we have an assurance from the Minister that when pricing policy is to be determined the trade unions will be consulted at all stages?
Third, when the future of the organisation is to be determined will the Minister

give us an assurance that all interests, including the trade unions, will be consulted throughout?
Fourth, on the question of future training for the industry, and apprentices in particular, recently the Gas Council has cut back on the apprentice intake into the industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member. He must confine himself to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: With respect, there is nothing I have spoken of that is not in the Bill. While I respect your ruling at all times, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I do not talk about the Bill I am sure you have every right to call me to order. I am talking about training. That aspect is contained in the Bill.
In recent times the Gas Council has reduced the apprentice intake. That is regrettable. Since my hon. Friend says that the industry has an expansionist future, will the Minister give me an assurance that he will seek an immediate expansion in the training programme of the Gas Corporation so that the expansion we look forward to can be catered for?
The Minister may have heard his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday say that my suggestion that the headquarters of the National Gas Corporation should be located at Kenton Bar in the Newcastle, West constituency was constructive. Will the Minister bear that point in mind when he has discussions with the new Gas Corporation about the location of the headquarters?
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) in wishing all who serve in the gas industry the success which they deserve.

Mr. Garrett: My intervention at this stage of this long and weary procedure will be brief. In Committee I participated in a long debate on Clause 1 seeking to reduce the number of full-time members of the Gas Corporation. We were unsuccessful, but I hope that when the Bill goes to another place there will be further intensive debate on that Clause and some modification.
The Committee has made progress, and it is a better Bill, as the Minister rightly said. It would be churlish of any of us


to deny that in general we have had the fullest explanations from the Minister. We have not necessarily accepted them but they have been given in good spirit, which has been in contrast to his predecessor in the early stages of the Bill. We were unable to get any degree of compromise or understanding then. We have received that lately, and for that we can be grateful.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) said about my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). He played a valiant rôle on our side of the Committee and worked damned hard. The same can be said of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, who was always courteous but persistent in his attacks. It was a very good Committee. I know that hon. Members opposite in the main remained silent, but, who knows, on the next Gas Bill—this is my third, I think—they may be in the position we are now in and they can make long and detailed points when the occasion arises.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fox.]

Orders of the Day — ROADS (WEST COUNTRY)

5.57 a.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak again about the urgent need further to improve our roads in the West Country. There is merit, I hope, in constancy. I am grateful too for the support I obviously have from my hon. Friends principally from Somerset, Devon and Dorset. We have sat up all night to take part in this debate. It is now almost six o'clock in the morning. This is indicative of the importance we attach to this matter and of the absurd way we go about things in this House.
In 1968 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
In transport the prime responsibility of Government is to provide better roads. Good communications remain the key to economic development.

That is as clear a statement as it is true, applying to the United Kingdom as a whole. It is especially valid in the West Country where good communications are our lifeline. The West Country has always been a special case for Government consideration. This is not a matter of dispute but a point which is generally acknowledged.
The background to our case is this. Tourism is our most important industry. A quarter of Britain's home holidays are taken in the West. We have a population of 2 million and four times that number will visit Somerset, Cornwall and Devon in 1972. Of that number 90 per cent. travel by road.
There is a great deal in these three counties to attract them. We have a quarter of the total coastline of England and Wales, much of it of exceptional quality. We have two national parks with a total area of over 630 square miles and we have many areas of outstanding natural beauty. We have weather that is better than the normal. The West is Britain's most popular holiday area. Good communications are vital to the tourist industry in the West Country.
Unemployment is persistently high. It is, alas, true to say that we are living on the edge of an industrial depression. The present level of unemployment is intolerable. Our younger people leave to get better livelihoods. Older people arrive to retire. There is an imbalance which is unacceptable, as is the general situation.
The South-West Regional Planning Council's report "A Region with a Future" recently stated:
There is no doubt that the problems of the South and West and the far South-West in particular stem in part from their remoteness from the main population and industrial centres and the inadequacies of connecting links.
To get unemployment down, we need better roads.
As to industry, in some areas the number employed in manufacturing industry as a proportion of the population is half the national average. The efforts which have been made, though devoted, to attracting new industry, have met with little success. I remember well from my own experience as a Board of Trade Minister how disinclined people are, because of transport problems, to come to the South-West.
These efforts cannot succeed unless and until we have better roads. For existing industry, out inadequate road system entails wastefully high costs of transport and distribution. The South-West being a peninsula, any manufacturer must use roads twice—first to import goods to process locally and then to export to other parts of the United Kingdom.
There is perhaps a paradox in our situation. The value of work in progress on new road construction had fallen from a peak of £580 million in the first quarter of 1970 to £368 million in the last quarter of 1971—that is, by over £200 million or by one-third. Road construction as a whole in Britain has declined to its lowest level for three years.
However, the present Government have kept their promise to the West Country. I am glad to be able to acknowledge this, particularly as there is not one Labour Member present. Perhaps Labour Members are ashamed of their Government's record in building roads in the West. We owe my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) a great deal for the fact that the promise to the West Country has been kept; for 9 per cent, of the present road building and improvement programme is now being spent in the West Country.
So far so good. If the future provides a greater opportunity for employment prospects—perhaps they are enhanced now—it also poses a problem. We have lost our local railways. We are losing our local bus services. These are matters not of dispute but of fact. It is equally a fact that our trunk roads are overcrowded to crisis point, that minor roads are similarly inadequate, that town and village roads are in a hundred instances, perhaps in several hundred cases my hon. Friends may think, bearing loads for which they were never designed or intended.
I am a supporter of the Government's plans—I am glad to say this in the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-secretary, whose presence at this late hour to reply to the debate we all greatly appreciate—for the completion of 3,500 miles of motorways and strategic trunk roads by the early 1980s, with the resulting benefits to the West Country. We have the M5 to Exeter, due to be completed by 1975; the A38 to be dualled

to Plymouth and in due course to Bodmin; and the work to be done on A30. We are grateful for this. It is 15 years too late perhaps, but that is neither my hon. Friend's fault nor mine, nor the fault of any of us who are here tonight.
There are substantial gaps. There is the North Devon link, planned but not in hand. There are some improvements planned in Somerset on the A30 and A303 links, but much more is needed, because there is no doubt that a great proportion of the A303 is substandard and traffic is subject to delays, and an early programme for its reconstruction is required.
We need also a Southampton—Bristol link; the A46 to be improved between Bath and M4; the South Bristol spur—not yet in any programme; the Somerset connections to M5, about which my hon. Friends can speak better than I; and modernisation of the A39 and A37.
Then there is the A361 in the north-east, now carrying up to 10,000 vehicles per day, 20 per cent. of them heavy vehicles. Further down in the county there are up to 13,000 vehicles per day. The road is hopelessly inadequate for that purpose. I have in the past raised the problems of villages like Milverton on this route, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something about the problems of that pleasant place. Then there is the question of town centre relief works needed at Weston-super-Mare, Yeovil and Taunton, about which I took a deputation to see Ministers a few days ago.
These are major matters. Come into the villages, Sir, into Dulverton, into Wiveliscombe—places that are not often talked about but which desperately need bypasses. In all Somerset there are only 12 miles of dual carriageway, and what is the cost? On the 31 miles of the A38 in Somerset between 1969 and 1971 there were no fewer than 961 reported accidents, an annual average of 6·3 per mile. I could continue with a long catalogue, but I will not do so because some of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
There was a good listing which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have seen recently in the BRF report: in Cornwall, A391, A3058, A3074, B3302 and A3074; St. Austell, New quay, Truro, Falmouth, Helston. One could list a


dozen improvements which are urgently needed.
In Devon, there is A380, the Kingskerswell—Newton Abbot—Kingsteignton road. One has only to travel on that road, the road from Torbay, the A385 or the Torbay ring road to see how urgent are the problems in Devon. There are the A382, A379, A377, A386, and A373. Whether we talk about Newton Abbot, Teignmouth, Dawlish relief, Exeter to Exmouth, the northern bypass or Cullompton to Honiton, relief roads or bypasses, there is much to be done. The need is urgent if not crucial.
The Somerset branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England put it well in a recent report:
More than even before major through routes are needed to take the volume of heavy traffic and through traffic which should be kept moving and away from narrow lanes some of which often serve as short cuts.
We view the scene with some anxiety, and sooner or later restraints of various kinds will have to be imposed—on motor cars, perhaps, as has been done in Polperro, on heavy lorries which must be kept out of villages and small towns. I instance Wellington in my constituency. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-secretary will bear in mind the view of some of us that there should be new criteria of judgment of road schemes. The economic return, yes. The accident rate, yes. These are existing criteria. I would also add amenity, which is of special value and point in the South-West.
In some respects our problems do not diminish. On the contrary they increase, in spite of the helpfulness and sympathy of the present Administration. As the barriers to main road travel diminish, as the mobility of the population increases, there is a danger that the South-West may be swamped. For example, it is estimated that the number of day trippers may increase threefold over the next several years. It is estimated that by 1980 no less than 100,000 people daily will visit Dartmoor. It is estimated that by 1975, when the motorway construction to Exeter will be completed, the Devon coast will be brought within three and a half hours' travel for a further 18 million people. As other roads are completed, the West will be open to London and

the South-East, in addition to the people living in the great conurbations of the Midlands. Truly the South-West will be on Britain's doorstep.
If traffic is not to destroy the countryside and coastline we need a comprehensive strategy. It will not be only a matter of providing picnic sites and transit sites to get caravans off lay-bys at night—incidentally, how little caravanners contribute to our prosperity—and not only a matter of special parking places which are called "honey pots"; we must take a broader view.
These new trunk roads will not necessarily help our area unless we make a positive effort to overcome congestion in it, to provide access to areas to which people want to go and to provide them with places to park when they get there. We are not unaware of the problems in the South-West, but we cannot cope alone. We need help and on a substantial scale.
Already we have earmarked certain holiday areas for expansion and others for restraint. But uncontrolled development is a serious threat. We are concerned to protect our uniquely beautiful heritage, and we shall do it.
I hope my hon. Friend will be able to assure us that he is aware of the problems and that they will have the attention of his Department. I hope, too, that he will say that the much-talked-about proposals for additional expenditure in the West of £200 million over the next 10 or 15 years will be considered. We need new feeder roads to our coastal resorts. We need a number of new town developments. It is ridiculous that a place like Newquay should be completely blocked off to traffic in the summer months. We need sympathetic consideration for schemes of traffic management. We need generous loan sanction for parking schemes when we put them up.
Having got on well, thanks to the Government, with stage one, with the building of these new trunk roads, we come to stage two when we need to think about comprehensive programmes of development. It is that which I urge on my hon. Friend tonight.

6.12 a.m.

Mr. Tom King: I intervene briefly to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton


(Mr. du Cann) for his energy in promoting this very valuable debate at this hour of the morning. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will have noted that it is a measure of the strength of feeling in the South-West on this problem that a number of my hon. Friends and I are here to listen and perhaps to take part in the debate.
My right hon. Friend has made the case for the South-West very well. I add but one point. It is that my constituency is facing quite intolerable conditions at present with the construction of the motorway. The bottlenecks caused at High bridge and Bridgwater will be known about in my hon. Friend's Department. The consolation in my constituency is that shortly the motorway will be completed and this anguish will be past. But what concerns so many now is the gap which will exist before the construction of the secondary network to deal with the traffic which will come off the motorway once it is built.
I add a special plea for consideration of the northern relief road for Bridgwater and for the total improvement of the A39 from Bridgwater through to Porlock.

6.13 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps Bristol might quickly follow Bridgwater and say that we very much look forward to the M5 bridge being finished in Bristol. My constituents are suffering intolerably because of the diversion of traffic which should be carried across that bridge.
I support everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said. As a Bristolian, I know what happens when people pour into the West from that end. As one who lives on the A35, I know how badly the Puddle town bypass is needed in the Athelhampton district and the other places that my right hon. Friend mentioned.
I hope that account will be taken of the way in which our small towns and villages are being wrecked by through traffic. It is no good tearing out the middle of towns and villages. We need bypasses before places are destroyed for ever.
On jobs, my right hon. Friend said that people were leaving the area. If we had better roads there would be greater mobility and people would be able to get to work over greater distances.
Finally, my right hon. Friend spoke of the way in which the vehicle is spoiling the countryside. Access sometimes brings destruction. I hope the Government will say that there are places where the vehicle shall not go. People must walk on their own two feet if they want to enjoy what otherwise they will destroy.

6.15 a.m.

Mr. John Hannam: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for raising the question of this important mass of roads in the South-West. Our county is totally dependent on communications for its future. I am grateful to the Government for the programme already outlined but I would like to raise the question of Exeter which has a notorious record for congestion and bypass problems.
One is in sympathy with the hundreds of thousands of motorists who find themselves stranded on the bypass year after year. I would ask whether it is inevitable that we should wait another four years before the motorway snakes or drives itself all the way to Exeter. Is it possible for part of the motorway which will form the further Exeter bypass to be started and to be linked with the Bristol-Exeter motorway later? That would alleviate the problems of thousands of motorists facing many hours and great problems in the congested area of Devon.
Finally there is the question of congestion in Exeter, with heavy traffic shaking old buildings. The city council introduced a ban on heavy traffic in certain areas but this has funnelled it through other areas, causing havoc and great distress. We are in a hurry to start the primary road through the Exe Valley to North Devon. I am grateful that it is in preparation.

6.17 a.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend for his initiative on an extremely important subject for us in the West Country. I do not under-value what the


Government have done in a short time in bringing forward major trunk routes in the South-West. They have done well, and it will help to enhance the prospects for the tourist industry in the South-West, but we started a long way behind and still have a long way to go. Let them not be satisfied with what they have done.
The A303 which passes through my constituency needs more double track and bypasses for the smaller towns. Bypasses and relief roads have been scheduled for almost two years in my constituency, but we want to push ahead as rapidly as possible to make the towns as attractive as possible for the sort of industry we need in the South-West.

6.19 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): At this late hour I note the absence of any Labour or Liberal Member for this important subject which my right hon. Friend has raised. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) and Wells (Mr. Boscawen) for drawing to the attention of the House the serious problems faced by the South-West in road communications.
There are now over £350 million worth of trunk and principal road schemes under construction, in our firm programme, or in preparation, in the three counties of Devon, Cornwall and Somerset. All this work is aimed to be completed by the early 1980s, and, of course, much can be completed before then.
I do not altogether go along with the implication of the remark about the decline in the road programme. This year there will be a constant £1 million more worth of roads under construction each week than last year, and the Government objective is to increase by 10½ per cent. each year at constant prices the expenditure on the trunk road programme up to 1975–76.
Having said that, we should look at the problems of the West Country arising partly from the relative remoteness of the South-West.
In the past West Country road improvements took a lower priority than the more highly trafficked routes to the Midlands

and the North-West. The West Country has had more than its fair share of narrow roads and country lanes, and in recent years there has been substantial growth of traffic with the increasing importance of tourism and the development of industry.
Far more is now being done than in the past. Work now in hand means that the spine road of the M5—A38 from Bristol to Plymouth will be completed by 1976, and it will be possible to drive from London to Plymouth, using the M4 and this route, in substantially less than four hours. In fact, most of the A38 section and the M5 to the south of Bridgwater will be open in 1974.
I have noted what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, but at this stage I cannot give him any firm assurances. Obviously, we are anxious to get on with this section as fast as we can.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last July that, as part of his strategic plan for the trunk road network up to the early 1980s, the A38 from Plymouth to Bodmin, the A30 from Exeter to Penzance, and the A30—A303 from the M3 to Exeter would all be comprehensively improved. Here bypasses of Liskeard, Launceston and Camborne—Redruth, as well as other lengths, will be completed by 1975. More recently, a link from the M5 to North Devon to relieve the present route along the A361 has been put into preparation. We are pressing on with this. All this represents a substantial programme of work to improve the major routes.
The local authorities, too, have a large programme of improvements to principal roads, towards the cost of which the Government make a 75 per cent. grant. Twenty-seven more schemes were added by us to the principal road preparation list in March. This programme includes links to the motorway, which will be important if traffic is not simply to be deposited from the M5 on to the present road network. I know that this is worrying my hon. Friends in Somerset. For example, a link from Taunton to the motorway is at an advanced stage of development. Washford bypass and the Cannington bypass will also improve the route from the M5 at Bridgwater towards the Quantocks and Exmoor.
As I have said, all this amounts to a commitment to spend £350 million in the period up to the early 1980s. Indeed, the valuable report of the British Road Federation, which I have read with interest, envisaged expenditure of £250 million over 20 years, so we are doing better than was urged upon us.
However, we must be careful that in doing all this we do not lose sight of the importance of conserving the beauty and attractiveness of the region and of saving the multitude of lovely villages and towns from the congestion and the sheer volume of people which our road planning will put within easy reach of this great national asset. Tourism is of great importance to the West Country, and new and improved roads will sustain and encourage that industry, as well as others. However, we must make sure that it does not kill the beautiful charm and heritage of the West Country as well.
This problem is well appreciated in my Department and by the local authorities concerned. I commend to the House the Devon County Council's report, "The Motorway into Devon", which shows one county's appreciation of the situation and its determination that improved road communications shall, without doubt, be an asset to the community.
My right hon. Friend talked about one or two problems in his area. He mentioned Milverton. He knows that we appreciate the problem there. It was discussed a few months ago when he brought a deputation to see my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). I can tell him that the Government will make an announcement about this matter within a few days.
Concerning the Taunton Eastern relief road, Somerset County Council, which is the highway authority for this road, has submitted a firm programme report to the Department. We expect construction work on this scheme to begin in about 18 months. I think this will particularly help my right hon. Friend's constituents.
I should like to repeat my assurance to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we well understand the road problems of the West Country and their importance to its economic life. I hope that some of the matters I have mentioned in this brief debate about the scale of expenditure which is now envisaged show

that this is not an empty statement but that we are backing it up with hard cash.
We are also concerned that new roads should be an opportunity, a challenge, to the area, not a threat. There will need to be very full consultations with the local authorities concerned about the various measures to follow this improved road network—stage 2, I think my right hon. Friend would say—to ensure we do not disgorge tens of thousands of motor cars on to inadequate secondary roads.
I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends and, indeed, people in the West Country, will see that the Government are now, perhaps for the first time, ensuring that the South-West of England has a modern and efficient road system which will enhance the environment. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends we do not look only at economic criteria. Certainly my job as a Minister in deciding these matters is to take into account amenity and environmental factors. For the first time we have a Government which can do just that. We shall be looking at the problems of the region. We shall try to enhance all that is best there, and also to help the industrial development that is needed in parts of the region.
My right hon. Friend asked whether we were aware of the problems there. I give the assurance that we are and that we have the determination to solve them.

Mr. du Cann: I am grateful, as I am sure all my hon. Friends are, for my hon. Friend's most forthcoming reply. I am especially grateful for what my hon. Friend said about Milverton. Can he say what progress has been made on the Avon Bridge?

Mr. Speed: Avon Bridge has been dogged by box girder and industrial relations problems. All I can say is that our present indication is that there is no prospect of the Avon Bridge opening before April, 1973, and it may be even later. We are examining this as a matter of urgency with the local authorities in Bristol and Somerset and we are pressing on as fast as we can to get the technical problems solved.

Mr. Robert Cooke: We put up with the lack of this bridge this summer; we cannot put up with the lack of it for another one. My hon. Friend referred


vaguely to its being ready in the spring of next year. I hope that he will firm up his undertaking to get it ready for next summer.

Mr. Speed: If I give any undertaking I want to be as accurate as I can. This is an extremely difficult technical problem, and I cannot be firmer than that. I

assure my hon. Friend that all the technical experience of my Department, of the contractors and of everybody else is being put into solving the problem, and we are getting excellent co-operation from the local authorities concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Six o'clock a.m.